N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
V.V.V. & SONS EDIB LE OILS LIM ITED, a

Public Lim ite d

C om pa ny , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M EENAKSHI OVER SEAS, LLC , a Ne w Je rse y Lim ite d Lia

bility C om pa ny , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 23-15532 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-02961-DJC -C KD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Danie l J. C a la

bre tta , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 12, 2024 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B OGGS, * * R

AW LINSON, a

nd H.A. THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. In V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limite d v
. Me e nak shi Ov e r se as, LLC , 946 F.3d 542 (9th C i r. 2019) (“ VVV I ” ), Appe lla

nt V.V.V. & Sons EdibleOils Limite d



# FIL ED FEB 1 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Da nny J. B oggs, Unite d

Sta t e s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.(VVV) a

ppe a le d the dism issa l of its tra de m ark c l a im s for thre e m a rks: (1) the m ark

“ IDHAYAM ” for se sam e oil produc ts, R e g. No. 4,006,654 (the ‘ 654 M a rk); (2) the
m ark “ IDHAYAM ” for a va rie ty of c ooking oil produc ts, R e g. No. 4,225,172 (the

‘ 1 72 M ark); a

nd (3) the m ark “ IDHAYAM SOUTH INDIAN DELITE” for a
va rie ty of c ooking oil a

nd sta ple food produc ts, R e g. No. 4,334,000 (the ‘ 0 00 M ark). W e re ve rse d the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of VVV’ s c l a im s a s to the ‘ 654 M ark, a nd a ffirm e d the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the c la im s re ga rding the othe r two m a rks ba se d on VVV’ s non-opposition to dism issa l of those c la i m s. Se e id. a t 546–47. On re m and, the distric t

c ourt e nte re d fina l judgm e nt a s to the dism issa l with pre j udic e of a ll c la im s re la ting to the ‘ 172 a nd ‘ 0 00 M arks. VVV now a ppe a ls tha

t judgm e nt, c onte n d ing tha t the distric t c ourt m isinte rpre t e d the m andate to m e an that it no longe r ha d jurisdic tion to c onside r c la i m s re la ting to the ‘ 172 a nd ‘ 000 M arks. W e have j urisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. R e vie wing de novo, se e C re e c h v
. Te w a lt , 84 F.4th 777, 787 (9th C ir. 2023), we a ffirm
. The rule of m andate re q

uire s the distric t c ourt to stric tly c om p ly with the
m andate of the a

ppe lla te c ourt. Se e id. Pa rtic ula rly , “ the m andate of a

n a ppe lla te
c ourt fore c lose s the lowe r c ourt from re c onside ring m a tte rs de te rm ine d in the
a ppe lla te c o urt.” Id. (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). Our m andate
2in VVV I wa s c le ar. W e e x pre ssly re s e rve d only

the c la im s re la t ing to the‘ 6 54 M ark to be c onside re d by the distric t c ourt on re m and. VVV I , 946 F.3d a

t 547. Unde r the m a

ndate , the c la im s re la ting to the ‘ 172 a nd ‘ 000 M arks we re fore c lose d. Se e id. The distric t c ourt c om

plie d with the m andat e in dism issing those c la i m s with pre

judic e . W e are not pe rsua de d by VVV’ s a rgum e nts to the
c ontra ry . AFFIRM E D.

3