1 8

- 2277

- cv I.O.B. Realty, Inc. v. Patsy’s Brand Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED

BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE

NO TATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courtho use, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the

6 th day of May two thousand twenty

.

Present: JOHN M. WALKER, J R.

, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges

.

_____________________________________________________

I.O.B. REALTY, INC.

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

v. 18

- 2277

PATSY’S BRAND, INC.

,

Defendan t

- Appel lant

. 1

_____________________________________________________

Appearing for Appellant: Ronald D. Coleman (Brian M. Block

, on the brief )

, Mandelbaum Salsburg P.C., Roseland, N.J.

Appearing for Appellee: Kimberly M. Maynard, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, New York, N.Y.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ( Stanton

, J. ).

1 The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as above.2 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is VACATED AND

REMANDED

.

Appellant Patsy’s Brand appeals from the July 2 , 2018 judgment of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of New York ( Stanton

, J. ), ordering the Patent and Trademark Office to grant I.O.B. Realty’s pending trademark applications pursuant to S ection 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specificatio n of issues for review.

Over eighteen years ago, the Honorable John S. Martin of the Southern District of New York Court wrote that a “relatively mundane trademark litigation” between two restaurants who called themselves Patsy’s had turned “into a minor legal epic.” Patsy ’ s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. , No. 98

- cv

- 10175, 2002 WL 59434, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2002). In 2016, in the most recent chapter of this epic , I.O.B. Realty sued Patsy’s Brand

, asserting that the continued use and the registrati on of the mark PATSY ’ S OF NEW YORK infringed on I.O.B. Realty’s

more senior mark PATSY ’ S PIZZERIA in violation of S ection 43 of the Lanham Act and New

York common law.

On May 16, 2017, the district court denied Patsy’s Brand’s motion to dismiss in a written

decision. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. v. Patsy's Brand, Inc. , No. 16

- cv

- 7682, 2017 WL 2168815 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2017)

. On May 17, 2018, both parties cross

- moved for summary j udgment. On July 2, 2018, the district court issued a judgment without an opinion and closed the case. In the judgment, the district court stated the following:

The disputes in which the parties and the United States Patent Office (“PTO”) are at present e ntangled have their sources in the relationship between the trademark PATSY’S OF NEW YORK for

restaurant services and the trademark PATSY’S PIZZERIA which is being denied registration for pizzeria services and for franchising

services based on the misconce ption that it is sufficiently similar to

PATSY’S O F NEW YORK to produce confusion. In reality

1. There is no likelihood of confusion between PATSY’S OF NEW YORK and PATSY’S PIZZERIA. Except for the name Patsy’s, no one word in one appears in the other. It is stipulated that “Neither party produced evidence of actual confusion” (Stipulated Fact 40)

and “Neither party entered or otherwise produced survey evidence concerning a likelihood of confusion” (Stipulated Fact 41 ) between the two marks;

2. At various times all parties have recognized and asserted the dissimilarity between the marks and the unlikeliho od of confusion; and accordingly

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that3 3. Pursuant to Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119, the PTO is directed forthwith to grant Applications numbered 76/649,149 and 77/086,491 and to register the mark PATSY’S PIZZERIA for pizzeria services and for franchising services; and

4. The Clerk shall certify a copy of this order to the Director of the PTO for compliance herewith; and

5. The Clerk shall close the case.

Special App’x at 3

- 4.

Significantly, neither the judgment nor the district court’s docket entries note how the

district court disposed of the cross

- motions on summary judgment. Rule 56 requires the court to "state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “ All

t hat is required is a record sufficient to allow an informed appellate review . . . .” Jackson v. Fed. Exp ress
, 766 F.3d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 2014)

. In this case , however, the district court did not explain the basis for its conclusion or provide a sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful

review on appeal . Accordingly, we vacate and remand to the district court with instructions to explain its disposition. In particul ar, the district court should state whether it is granting or denying the motions for summary judgment, and should explain the basis for its authority to order the PTO to grant I.O.B. Realty’s pending trademark applications and to register the

PATSY’S PIZZ ERIA marks.

We have considered the remainder of Patsy ’s Brand’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is VACATED and the matter is

REMANDED

.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk