The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's January 3, 2008 Order (Doc. 312), which granted a permanent injunction to the Plaintiff and denied the request for sequestration and turnover. (Doc. 318.) Because there is no need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice, and the new facts presented by the Plaintiffs do not change the outcome, the Court will deny the motion for reconsideration.
The facts of this case are well-known to the parties and the Court. Therefore, the Court will only discuss the facts relevant to this motion.
On March 13, 2003, after trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Jama Corporation in action 3:99-CV-1624 for breach of contract and trademark infringement. (Doc. 205.) On March 21, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a motion for further relief, including prejudgment interest, delay damages, treble damages on the trademark infringement claim, a permanent injunction, an order to change the name of "Old West Cowboy Boots Corporation," and a sequestration and turnover of all documents, packaging, advertising, and products bearing the trademark "Old West." (Doc. 43, 3:99-CV-1624.) On January 3, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' requests by granting prejudgment interest, denying delay damages, denying treble damages, granting a permanent injunction, granting the change of name of "Old West Cowboy Boots Corporation," and denying the sequestration and turnover. (Doc. 312.) Plaintiffs filed the present motion for reconsideration of the January 3rd Order on January 16, 2008. (Doc. 318.)
The motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment within ten days of entry. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985). A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration establishes at least one of the following grounds: "(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Café, by Lou-Ann, Inc., v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999). "A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters already argued and disposed of or as an attempt to relitigate a point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant." Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp.2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002). "[R]econsideration motions may not be used to raise new arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Hill v. Tammac Corp., Civ. A. No. 05-1148, 2006 WL 529044, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2006). Lastly, the reconsideration of a judgment is an extraordinary remedy, and such motions should be granted sparingly. D'Angio v. Borough of Nescopeck, 56 F. Supp.2d 502, 504 (M.D. Pa. 1999).
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration requests that the Court alter or amend its Order of January 3, 2008 granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' requests for further relief. First, the Plaintiffs request that the Court modify the permanent injunction to make it retroactive to the date of the entry of judgment for trademark infringement. Second, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the denial of sequestration and turnover based upon the sale of Old West boots pursuant to the Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed by Old West Cowboy Boots Corporation.
Plaintiffs seek to modify the Court's permanent injunction in the Order of January 3, 2008 to be retroactive to the date of the judgment in the trademark infringement case, retroactive to March 20, 2003.
The Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, § 35, comment b, states that "[i]n cases of deceptive marketing, trademark infringement, or trademark dilution, a prevailing plaintiff is ordinarily awarded injunctive relief to protect the plaintiff and the public from the likelihood of future harm." Id. (emphasis added). The purpose of injunctive relief in trademark cases is the protection of the infringed from future harm. Generally, injunctive relief is designed to protect against future harm.
Injunctive relief is designed to meet a real threat of a future wrong or a contemporary wrong of a nature likely to continue or recur. Whether interlocutory or final, injunctive relief is ordinarily preventive or protective in character and restrains actions that have not yet been taken. It is generally not intended to redress, or punish for, past wrongs. . . . Accordingly, rights already lost and ...