throbber
Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA372327
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`10/08/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91174345
`Defendant
`Toytrackerz LLC
`
`TOYTRACKERZ LLC
`302 SOUTH LOWMAN STREET
`FORT SCOTT, KS 66701
`UNITED STATES
`toylaw@classicnet.net
`Other Motions/Papers
`Terri Lynn Coop
`circlexranch@sbcglobal.net
`/Terri Lynn Coop/
`10/08/2010
`ShowCauseResponse100810.pdf ( 2 pages )(16551 bytes )
`HerronTTABLetter100410.pdf ( 1 page )(120492 bytes )
`TTZJudgment.pdf ( 1 page )(36159 bytes )
`NCCJudgment.pdf ( 1 page )(44789 bytes )
`KSReconsiderDeny.pdf ( 27 pages )(81699 bytes )
`KSSumJudgment.pdf ( 14 pages )(46414 bytes )
`KSTrademarkDismiss.pdf ( 32 pages )(97895 bytes )
`KSAPEDismiss.pdf ( 1 page )(11295 bytes )
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`AMERICAN PLASTIC EQUIPMENT, INC.
`
`
`A Florida Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TOYTRACKERZ LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A Kansas Limited Liability Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opp. No. 91174345
`
`Consolidated With:
`
`Opp. No. 91174438
`Can. No. 92046541
`
`RESPONSE TO ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY ATTORNEY
`
`COMES NOW, Toytrackerz LLC, the Opposition Respondent and the
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation Petitioner, with its response to the inquiry of the Interlocutory Attorney as to
`
`the status of the civil case between the parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`District of Kansas case 2:07-cv-2253-DJW, styled:
`
`American Plastic Equipment, Inc. vs. Toytrackerz LLC
`
`Has been fully resolved with judgment in favor of Toytrackerz LLC on all trademarks
`
`and copyright counts. The case was terminated on April 1, 2010 and the appeal period
`
`has passed.
`
`
`
`David E. Herron II, filed a letter with the TTAB on October 4, 2010 saying this
`
`case was still pending (Ex. 1). This is misleading and not the truth. Attached are the
`
`following documents:
`
`Ex. 2 Judgment in a Civil Action in favor of Toytrackerz LLC, filed 04/01/2010
`
`Ex. 3 Judgment in a Civil Action in favor of Noah C. Coop, filed 03/31/2010
`
`Ex. 4 Memorandum and Order denying American’s motion for reconsideration, filed
`
`03/31/2010
`
`

`
`Ex. 5 Memorandum and Order granting Toytrackerz’ motion for summary judgment
`
`against American on Count I: Copyright, filed 03/31/2010
`
`Ex. 6 Memorandum and Order granting Toytrackerz’ motion to dismiss Counts II – IX:
`
`Trademarks, filed 03/31/2008.
`
`
`
`In a companion case before the District of Kansas, 2:08-cv-02297-GLR, the court
`
`found no jurisdiction over American Plastic Equipment and granted Mr. Herron’s motion
`
`to dismiss as to American on May 6, 2009. (Ex. 7: Docket Text Only).
`
`
`
`Consequently, all civil litigation between Toytrackerz LLC and American Plastic
`
`Equipment, Inc. is resolved and there is no reason for the matters pending before the
`
`Board not proceed.
`
`Submitted the 8th day of October 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/Terri L. Coop/
`
`Owner – Toytrackerz LLC
`10 N. National Avenue
`Fort Scott KS 66701
`(620) 215-3512
`circlexranch@sbcglobal.net
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TH THE L"['~.'lTEI'.| 5'§.'L"LTES PATENT AH U TRA.|1l-H5.-LAR1i UFFICE
`HEFDRL. THE TR.-5.| IIF.'!'.-‘r'_»5.RI'=.'.
`I F-'.L"rL ANT} APPEAI. BU.-‘RED
`
`.-"'IJ."|_'E.R T{.'.-"rT'~Z PL.-*rS'1'iC' EQLTT I-’-5.-I E'.'H'T. 1'3.’ L".
`:1 Flcrrlrlu I.'.‘.r+rpn:nI:1ti-:11‘:
`
`flpp. Hu EH.-"1 '1'-1,345
`
`vs.
`
`TDT['FM.CF.£R_?'. LLC
`:1 mm 1imitr:x.1 liability mmpany
`
`:rr11:.-Jlidatntad 'P.'ifl3:
`
`opp. rm um $4.435
`(Jana- Ha 5-:.~u4n'._541
`
`El‘-.5-;PEJ?~IE-J3 “I'D DRDER HF ]]~1TT-L|?.|.{'J{‘UTU-|'1"|’ .r'LT'T('.|RNE"5'.'
`
`in rr.-.:.p-tans:-.=: to 111:: flu-der ma_ilu::.i an Seprr:rnbt~r 1'2}. EU I H, rhe Cip-'|::-I_:«!-:«E*1‘ +‘unr:ri4::~Lr:
`Hasfir: 1_.qL:ipm_.-.~.u.:. Inc. h»::1:bg,- infnmns 11-rm rh.-2 »::i'v."-.1 acrlnn than rnccrlsinnr.-:.‘t Fm:
`.-.u.-apeusiun -'.‘:«f rhea»: ar:L1'mL=. renmim pendirrg in L|1vE" Tjnjrud Stains Di.r=Lri1:t Cu urr E:-r the
`District I:-I Kansas.
`
`Rcfipe-ctfult}-.
`
`I1
`.
`
`7' (I ._.3’
`j=,r3}:.5
`
`.,--~--
`
`I
`
`Davirl 1'-, llerrrm IE #15".i'33
`
`E5-E? E-EI.1ejau:1=Lr:I. E-l11=_-er
`l.¢nr:'.~:a KS F:-H2’!-1
`
`I19} 3}: 495-9465
`FAX {Sit Ti] E33-591$
`.-'I.'I'T'CIFJ~4']-I":' FDR a-5.?'.*EI-2i~'.1-['_‘A.l*~I P] A 2-ITIIC
`
`l'.‘ERT1F]L'.-5. 1 ES {IF M.-MLII*I{3
`
`Mafl. pu:-scrsxge prepaid
`T dep-1;-5it4::.l a u-:rp'_v.' of th: almxre and Ir.:rr:[.-.1:-irrg in the Llnitcd
`and pru:uj::-c:r!;.- EL-:'_|-d.|:n:~ssr.u.'I 1:: me]: of H1: Fcrll-zmliug 1*.--n '[Ihr:m‘t:n:.1- 4, EH10:
`
`.+'-.551. IL‘u:1n1n1"r fur Trademarks
`!'~.-‘E.-'IriL5Tf_‘.+E’ '[ '1'_-’LE|-
`PEI Bear. 1451
`.-"r.lr:.:-'.£n"uirirr. ‘in.-'.-"-'1 E 3313-
`
`T+:1T'r I- Cu-c-p
`3|]: 5 I.nwn.u=u1 Aw:
`I-If-3cra11]~1E-Hi-ETDL
`
`kiargzi‘
`
`ll-.‘.|a'rir:'| E iiérr-an II.+'.l15?'
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 85 Filed 04/01/09 Page 1 of 1
`
`AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`for the
`District of Kansas
`__________ District of __________
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`07-2253-DJW
`
`) ) ) ) )
`
`AMERICAN PLASTIC EQUIPMENT, INC.
`
`Plaintiff
`v.
`TOYTRACKERZ, LLC et al.
`Defendant
`
`JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`The court has ordered that (check one):
`
`u the plaintiff (name)
`defendant (name)
`
`interest at the rate of
`
`dollars ($
`%, plus postjudgment interest at the rate of
`
`recover from the
`the amount of
`), which includes prejudgment
`%, along with costs.
`
`u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)
`recover costs from the plaintiff (name)
`.
`
`✔
`u other:
`
`Defendant Toytrackerz, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 50) is granted.
`
`This action was (check one):
`
`u tried by a jury with Judge
`rendered a verdict.
`
`u tried by Judge
`was reached.
`✔
`u decided by Judge
`
`.
`
`presiding, and the jury has
`
`without a jury and the above decision
`
`David J. Waxse
`
`on a motion for
`
`Summary Judgment.
`
`Date:
`
`04/01/09
`
`TIMOTHY M. O'BRIEN
`CLERK OF COURT
`
`s/ Marla Gonzales
`Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 99 Filed 03/31/10 Page 1 of 1
`
`AD 450
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`for
`District of Kansas
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 07-2253-DJW
`
`JUDGMENT IN
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`American
`
`Plaintiff
`v.
`
`Noah
`Defendant
`
`The
`
`ordered that (check
`
`o the plaintiff (name)
`defendant (name)
`
`interest
`o the plaintiff recover nothing,
`
`- - - -
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`%, plus
`
`judgment interest at
`
`recover
`
`dismissed on
`plaintiff (name)
`
`- - - -
`
`defendant (name)
`
`dollars ($
`
`"
`
`Defendant Noah
`of
`
`judgment on Plaintiffs copyright
`
`This
`
`(check
`
`o tried
`rendered
`o tried
`was
`
`"
`
`S.
`[84] Summary
`Order
`
`Date:
`
`03/31/2010
`
`presiding, and
`
`jury has
`
`without a
`
`on
`
`motion for
`
`[88]
`
`O'BRIEN
`TIMOTHY
`CLERK OF COURT
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 1 of 27
`
`DJW/1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`AMERICAN PLASTIC EQUIPMENT, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TOYTRACKERZ, LLC, et al.,
`
`Civil Action
`
` No. 07-2253-DJW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`Pending before the Court is Plaintiff American Plastic, Inc.’s “Request for Reconsideration
`
`of Memorandum and Order of March 31, 2009 Pursuant to Local Rule § 7.3 and F.R.C.P. § 60”
`
`(doc. 94). The Memorandum and Order at issue granted Defendant Toytrackerz, LLC’s Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claims for copyright infringement. Plaintiff moves for
`
`reconsideration “in light of . . . new evidence and relevant case law.”1 For the reasons set forth
`
`below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
`
`I.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`This action was originally filed in the Western District of Missouri on March 9, 2007. The
`
`case was transferred to this District on June 13, 2007. On March 31, 2008, the Court dismissed all
`
`counts of Plaintiff’s Complaint, except for Count I, which alleged copyright infringement.2 In Count
`
`I, Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that it “is the valid owner of the copyrights in and to the Marx Action
`
`1Pl.’s Req. for Recons. of Mem. & Order of March 31, 2009 Pursuant to Local Rule § 7.3
`& F.R.C.P. § 60 (“Pl.’s Mot. for Recons.”) (doc. 94) at 3.
`
`2See March 31, 2008 Mem. & Order (doc. 44) at 32; see also March 31, 2008 Mem. & Order
`(doc. 45) at 8.
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 2 of 27
`
`Figures and Other Marx Toys.”3 Plaintiff further alleged that it “owns all the intellectual property
`
`rights of Louis Marx & Co. as purchased from the Chemical Bank of New York in June of 1988, as
`
`successor in interest to Louis Marx & Co.”4
`
`The Court denied without prejudice Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count I and allowed
`
`Plaintiff leave to amend Count I to cure certain procedural pleading deficiencies.5 Plaintiff filed its
`
`First Amended Complaint on April 9, 2008, amending its claims for copyright infringement and
`
`reasserting that it was the owner of the copyrights at issue.6 Subsequently, Defendant Toytrackerz,
`
`LLC (“Toytrackerz”) moved for summary judgment on Count I, arguing that it was entitled to
`
`judgment because Plaintiff could not establish ownership of the copyrights, which was an essential
`
`element of Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims.7 Plaintiff responded to Toytrackerz’ motion,8
`
`relying on the declaration of Jay Horowitz, its President, sole shareholder, and director, signed June
`
`3Compl. (doc. 1) ¶ 25.
`
`4Id.
`
`5See March 31, 2008 Mem. & Order (doc. 45) at 8. The Court held in its Order that because
`Plaintiff had failed to allege that the works at issue were registered in compliance with the copyright
`laws, Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
`granted. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend its copyright infringement claims by alleging
`that the works had been registered. Id. at 5.
`
`6First Am. Compl. (doc. 49) ¶ 35.
`
`7Toytrackerz’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (doc. 51) at 4-55.
`
`8See Pl.’s Resp. to Toytrackerz’ Mot. for Summ. J. (doc. 55); Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to
`Toytrackerz’ Mot. for Summ. J. (doc. 56).
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 3 of 27
`
`11, 2008.9 On March 31, 2009, the Court granted Toytrackerz’ Motion for Summary Judgment.10
`
` Judgment in favor of Toytrackerz was entered the following day, on April 1, 2009.11
`
`In its March 31, 2009 Memorandum and Order, the Court explained that to recover for
`
`copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership of the copyright.12 To establish ownership,
`
`the plaintiff must show a chain of title proving transfer of ownership from the original author of the
`
`copyrighted work.13 As the Court recognized, 17 U.S.C. § 204(a) requires a transfer of copyright
`
`ownership to be set forth in a writing signed by the copyright owner.14 It provides: “A transfer of
`
`copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of
`
`conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the
`
`rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.”15 There is no requirement that the writing
`
`contain any particular language; however, “[i]t must clearly show an agreement to transfer the rights
`
`in the copyright.”16
`
`9See Horowitz Decl., attached as Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Resp. to Toytrackerz’ Mot. for Summ. J. (doc.
`55) (“First Horowitz Decl.”).
`
`10See March 31, 2009 Mem. & Order (doc. 84).
`
`11See April 1, 2010 Judgment (doc. 85).
`
`12March 31, 2009 Mem. & Order (doc. 84) at 10-11.
`
`13Id. at 10. The Court noted: “If a plaintiff who is not the author of the copyrighted work
`sues for infringement, he or she must establish a proprietary right through the chain of title in order
`to support a valid claim to the copyright.” Id. (citations omitted).
`
`14Id. at 10 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 204(a)).
`
`1517 U.S.C. § 204(a).
`
`16March 31, 2009 Mem. & Order (doc. 84) at 11.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 4 of 27
`
`The Court identified two breaks in the chain of title, either one of which proved fatal to
`
`Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims. The most recent break was in the alleged transfer of rights
`
`from the dissolved Marx Toys, Inc. to Plaintiff in 2003.17 The Court found that there was no written
`
`document in the record memorializing the alleged assignment of the copyrights from Marx Toys,
`
`Inc. to Plaintiff.18 Thus, the Court held that Plaintiff did not meet its burden to show that Marx Toys,
`
`Inc. had transferred the rights to Plaintiff in 2003.19
`
`The Court also found an earlier break in the chain of title with respect to Chemical Bank’s
`
`ownership of the copyrights.20 The record contained a 1988 Bill of Sale signed by Chemical Bank
`
`transferring to Plaintiff “whatever rights, if any, it had in the copyrights formerly owned by Louis
`
`Marx & Co.”21 The record, however, contained no signed writing by Louis Marx & Co. transferring
`
`the copyrights to Chemical Bank, and, thus, there was no evidence that Chemical Bank owned the
`
`particular copyrights at issue when it transferred to Plaintiff “whatever rights, if any” it possessed.
`
`The Court therefore held that Plaintiff did not meet its burden to establish that Chemical Bank
`
`owned the copyrights that Plaintiff claimed it received from Chemical Bank in 1988.22
`
`After finding two breaks in the chain of title, the Court concluded:
`
`Without that unbroken chain of title, Plaintiff cannot establish its ultimate ownership
`of the copyrights. Ownership is an essential element of Plaintiff’s copyright
`
`17Id. at 12.
`
`18Id.
`
`19Id.
`
`20Id. at 13.
`
`21Id. at 6-7.
`
`22Id. at 13.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 5 of 27
`
`infringement claims, and Plaintiff’s failure to establish the chain of title is fatal to its
`ability to recover for copyright infringement. The Court will therefore enter
`summary judgment in favor of Toytrackerz.23
`
`II.
`
`The Relief Requested by Plaintiff
`
`As a threshold matter, the Court must determine what rule governs Plaintiff’s motion.
`
`Plaintiff styles its motion as a “Request for Reconsideration . . . Pursuant to Local Rule § 7.3 and
`
`F.R.C.P. § 60.”24 In the body of its motion (which Plaintiff has combined with its supporting brief),
`
`Plaintiff asks the Court to “reconsider” its Memorandum and Order and, upon reconsideration, deny
`
`Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.25
`
`D. Kan. Rule 7.3 governs motions to reconsider. Rule 7.3 makes it clear, however, that it
`
`does not apply to reconsideration of dispositive orders or judgments. The Rule states: “Motions
`
`seeking reconsideration of dispositive orders or judgments must be filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`59(e) or 60. Reconsideration of such an order or judgment will not be granted under this rule.”26
`
`
`
`The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize motions to reconsider.27 As a result,
`
`this Court typically construes any self-styled motion to reconsider a dispositive order or judgment
`
`as either a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
`
`judgment or order.28 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in effect at the time Plaintiff filed
`
`23Id.
`
`24Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. (doc. 94) at i.
`
`25Id. at 1, 10.
`
`26D. Kan. Rule 7.3(a).
`
`27Hatfield v. Bd. of County Comm’rs for Converse County, 52 F.3d 858, 861 (10th Cir. 1995).
`
`28Johnson v. Gilchrist, No. 09-3063-SAC, 2010 WL 750256, at *1 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2010)
`(continued...)
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 6 of 27
`
`its motion, a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment could only be filed within ten days of
`
`the judgment.29 A Rule 60(b) motion, on the other hand, “must be made within a reasonable time,”
`
`and if the motion is brought under subsections (b)(1), (2) or (3), no more than a year after the entry
`
`of the judgment or order.30 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in effect at the time Plaintiff
`
`filed its motion,31 if a motion to reconsider a dispositive order or judgment is filed within ten days
`
`of the entry of judgment, this Court will treat it as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the
`
`judgment.32 If the motion to reconsider is filed more than ten days after entry of the dispositive
`
`order or judgment, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order.33
`
` Here, Plaintiff seeks “reconsideration” of the Court’s Order granting Toytrackerz’ Motion
`
`for Summary Judgment. Because that order was a dispositive one, D. Kan. Rule 7.3 is inapplicable,
`
`and either Federal Rule 59(e) or 60(b) governs. Which of those two rules applies depends on when
`
`Plaintiff filed its motion. Plaintiff filed its motion on May 22, 2009, approximately two months after
`
`28(...continued)
`(citing Hawkins v. Evans, 64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir. 1995)).
`
`29See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later
`than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.”). Effective December 1, 2009, Rule 59(e) was
`amended so that motions to alter or amend a judgment may be filed within 28 days after the entry
`of judgment. This change does not apply to Plaintiff’s Motion, which was filed six months prior to
`the amendment’s effective date.
`
`30Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).
`
`31On December 1, 2009, several amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went
`into effect. Because Plaintiff’s motion was filed six months before the effective date of these
`amendments, the Court will apply the rules as they were written prior to the December 1, 2009
`amendments.
`
`32Johnson, 2010 WL 750256, at *1 (citing Hawkins, 64 F.3d at 546). Under the 2009
`amendment, the Court would treat it as Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend if the motion was
`brought within 28 days of the entry of judgment.
`
`33Id. (citing Hawkins, 64 F.3d at 546).
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 7 of 27
`
`the Court entered its March 31, 2009 Memorandum and Order. Thus, Rule 60(b) provides the only
`
`relief available to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a Rule 60(b)
`
`motion for relief from judgment or order.
`
`III.
`
`Legal Standard for a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order
`
`Rule 60(b) provides that “on motion and just terms” the court may relieve a party from a
`
`final judgment or order for the following reasons:
`
`(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
`(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
`discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
`(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
`misconduct by an opposing party;
`(4) the judgment is void;
`(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier
`judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
`equitable; or
`(6) any other reason that justifies relief.34
`
`The Tenth Circuit has held that Rule 60(b) relief is “is extraordinary and may only be granted
`
`in exceptional circumstances.”35 A litigant shows “exceptional circumstances” by satisfying one or
`
`more of the grounds listed in Rule 60(b).36 A party who seeks relief under Rule 60(b) has a high
`
`hurdle to overcome because such a motion is not a substitute for an appeal.37 Whether to grant Rule
`
`60(b) relief lies within the “substantial discretion” of the district court.38
`
`34Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
`
`35Zurich v. N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281, 1289 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting
`Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000)).
`
`36Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d 1241, 1243-44 (10th Cir. 1991).
`
`37Davis v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 507 F.3d 1246, 1247 (10th Cir. 2007).
`
`38Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 1990).
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 8 of 27
`
`The purpose of Rule 60(b) is not to allow the court to revisit issues it has already addressed
`
`in the underlying order.39 Nor is it intended as a vehicle for the losing party to “advance new
`
`arguments or supporting facts which were otherwise available for presentation” in the underlying
`
`proceedings.40 Moreover, Rule 60(b) does not offer a party the opportunity to re-litigate its case
`
`after the court has rendered a decision.41 In other words, a motion for relief from judgment “is not
`
`a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments, or to dress
`
`up arguments that previously failed.”42
`
`IV.
`
`Analysis
`
`Plaintiff’s motion focuses on the Court’s ruling that the chain of title was broken due to
`
`Plaintiff’s failure to present evidence of: (1) a signed written document establishing that Chemical
`
`Bank owned the copyrights when Chemical Bank purportedly transferred those rights to Plaintiff
`
`in 1988; and (2) a signed written document memorializing the alleged 2003 assignment of the
`
`copyrights by the dissolved Marx Toys, Inc. to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he documents and
`
`declarations being presented in connection with this request for reconsideration complete the
`
`disputed chains of title in accordance with § 204 of the Copyright Act and relevant case law.”43
`
`39Palmer v. McKune, No. 07-3007-SAC, 2008 WL 2051096, at *3 (D. Kan. May 13, 2008)
`(quoting Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243).
`
`40Id. (citing Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243).
`
`41Id. (citing Servants, 204 F.3d at 1012).
`
`42Id. (citing Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan.), aff’d, 43 F.3d
`1484 (10th Cir. 1994)).
`
`43Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. (doc. 94) at 2.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 9 of 27
`
`A.
`
`The Transfer of Copyrights from Louis Marx & Co. to Chemical Bank in 1982
`
`1.
`
`Additional background information
`
`The copyrights at issue in this case were originally owned by Louis Marx & Company.
`
`Plaintiff claims that it obtained its rights to the copyrights from Chemical Bank through one or more
`
`bills of sale (“Bills of Sale”).44 The Bills of Sale stated, inter alia, that “CHEMICAL BANK
`
`(“Seller”) does hereby sell and transfer to AMERICAN PLASTIC EQUIPMENT, INC. (“Buyer”),
`
`Seller’s interest, if any, in all of the . . . copyrights and related goodwill formerly owned by Louis
`
`Marx & Co. . . .”45 Plaintiff alleged in its First Amended Complaint that Louis Marx & Co. filed for
`
`bankruptcy in 1980 in the Southern District of New York and “[i]n these bankruptcy proceedings,
`
`Chemical Bank . . . acquired the assets of [Louis Marx & Co.] because of its status as a preferred
`
`creditor.”46
`
`Toytrackerz argued in its Motion for Summary Judgment that there was no legal instrument
`
`assigning the copyrights to Chemical Bank in the bankruptcy action nor any written transfer of the
`
`copyrights from Louis Marx & Co. to Chemical Bank outside of the bankruptcy proceedings.47
`
`Given the “if any” language in the Bill of Sale, it remained unclear whether Chemical Bank actually
`
`possessed any interest in the copyrights at issue in this case. Thus, Toytrackerz maintained that
`
`Plaintiff could not show an unbroken chain of title through Chemical Bank, and Toytrackerz was
`
`therefore entitled to summary judgment.
`
`44First Am. Compl. (doc. 49) ¶ 12; Pl.’s Resp. to Toytrackerz’ Mot. for Summ. J. (doc. 55)
`
`at 3.
`
`45April 12, 1988 Bill of Sale and June 2, 1988 Bill of Sale, attached as Exs. A & C to Mem.
`in Supp. of Toytrackerz’ Mot. for Summ. J. (doc. 51) (emphasis added).
`
`46First Am. Compl. (doc. 49) ¶ 10.
`
`47Toytrackerz’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (doc. 51) at 9.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 10 of 27
`
`In responding to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff never provided any evidence
`
`to show that Chemical Bank actually owned any of the copyrights at issue such that it could transfer
`
`those copyrights to Plaintiff through the Bill of Sale. Indeed, although Plaintiff had alleged in both
`
`its Complaint and First Amended Complaint that Chemical Bank acquired the copyrights from Louis
`
`Marx & Co. through the 1980’s bankruptcy proceedings and its preferred creditor status, Plaintiff
`
`never asserted that in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Rather, Plaintiff seemingly
`
`contradicted its earlier allegation and stated in response to Toytrackerz’ Statement of
`
`Uncontroverted Fact No. 7: “[T]he record in the bankruptcy court is void of any mention of the
`
`ownership of copyrights that are at issue in this case.”48 Thus, because Plaintiff failed to present any
`
`competent evidence that Louis Marx & Co ever transferred the copyrights to Chemical Bank––either
`
`through the bankruptcy proceedings or through a signed writing––the Court ruled that Plaintiff had
`
`failed to establish an unbroken chain of title through Chemical Bank. Plaintiff’s failure to do so
`
`rendered it unable to prove an essential element of its copyright claims, and, thus, the Court entered
`
`summary judgment in favor of Toytrackerz.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)
`
`As noted above, Plaintiff requests reconsideration “in light of . . . new evidence and relevant
`
`case law.”49 Plaintiff’s “new evidence” consists of certain bankruptcy records from the 1980
`
`bankruptcy filing of Louis Marx & Co and the declarations of Jay Horowitz, Barry Piels, and
`
`Howard Strauss, along with various documents that are attached to those declaration.
`
`48Pl.’s Resp. to Toytrackerz’ Mot. for Summ. J. (doc. 55) at 3.
`
`49Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. (doc. 94) at 1.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 11 of 27
`
`Plaintiff states that “given the Court’s March 31, 2009 Order, Plaintiff retained new
`
`intellectual property counsel who recently located the S.D.N.Y. bankruptcy files for In re Louis
`
`Marx Co., Inc., Case No. 80 B 10150 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).”50 Plaintiff explains that in those files its
`
`new counsel found an “Order Approving Agreement with Chemical Bank” (“Bankruptcy Court
`
`Order”).51 Plaintiff has submitted a certified copy of the Bankruptcy Court Order, which is file-
`
`stamped April 15, 1982, and states that the Bankruptcy Court is approving a March 1982 letter
`
`agreement between the debtor Louis Marx & Co. and Chemical Bank. Attached to the Bankruptcy
`
`Court Order is Louis Marx & Co.’s Application for Order Approving Agreement with Chemical
`
`Bank, in which Louis Marx & Co. states that under the reorganization plan, it “is to transfer all of
`
`its rights, title and interest in and to all of its assets, both personal and real, to Chemical Bank . . .
`
`in satisfaction of Chemical’s secured claim against Marx.”52 The letter agreement is attached to the
`
`Application, and sets forth Louis Marx & Co.’s agreement to transfer to Chemical Bank “all of its
`
`rights, title and interest in all of its tangible assets . . . and all of its intangible assets.”53
`
`Plaintiff argues that these bankruptcy documents establish that Chemical Bank owned the
`
`copyrights that it transferred to Plaintiff. More specifically, Plaintiff contends that the Bankruptcy
`
`Court Order shows that the copyrights were transferred to Chemical Bank “by operation of law.”
`
`Therefore, Plaintiff did not have to satisfy the written instrument requirement of 17 U.S.C. § 204(a).
`
`As noted above, § 204(a) provides that “[a] transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation
`
`of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer,
`
`50Id. at 2.
`
`51See Bankruptcy Court Order, attached as Ex. 1 to Decl. of Barry Piels (doc. 94-2).
`
`52Id.
`
`53Id.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 12 of 27
`
`is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized
`
`agent.”54 Plaintiff also appears to argue that the letter agreement would satisfy the written
`
`instrument requirement of § 204(a).
`
`Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to reconsideration because “[a]t the time Plaintiff filed its
`
`response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it did not have copies of the bankruptcy
`
`records within its possession.”55 Plaintiff states that “[f]or over twenty five (25) years, no one had
`
`ever called into question the Bill of Sale evidencing the assignment of IP rights from Chemical Bank
`
`to [Plaintiff] since Chemical Bank, founded in 1823, was a well-established and respected financial
`
`institution.”56
`
`Plaintiff also provides the declarations of Jay Horowitz,57 Barry Piels,58 and Robert Strauss,59
`
`all of which were signed in May 2009 and expressly state they are being filed in support of
`
`Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff contends that these declarations and their attached documents are
`
`additional “new evidence” that entitle it to reconsideration.
`
`The first declaration is that of Mr. Horowitz, who is, as noted above, is the President, sole
`
`shareholder, and director of Plaintiff. He states in his declaration: “I am aware that as a secured
`
`creditor, Chemical Bank was awarded all assets of Louis Marx Co., Inc. by the bankruptcy court in
`
`5417 U.S.C. § 204(a) (emphasis added).
`
`55Pl.s’ Mot. for Recons. (doc. 94) at 1.
`
`56Id. at 1-2.
`
`57Horowitz Decl., attached as Ex. 3 to Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. (doc. 94-3) (“Second Horowitz
`Declaration”).
`
`58Piels Decl., attached as Ex. 2 to Pl’s Mot. for Recons. (doc. 94-2) (“Piels Decl.”).
`
`59Strauss Decl., attached as Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. (doc. 94-1) (“Strauss Decl.”).
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 13 of 27
`
`In re Louis Marx Co. Inc., Case No. 80-B 10150 (S.D. N.Y. 1980).”60 Attached to Mr. Horowitz’
`
`declaration are a number of documents, including (1) a handwritten sales agreement between
`
`Plaintiff and David Strauss & Co., Inc., the company retained by Chemical Bank to appraise and
`
`liquidate Louis Marx & Co.’s assets in 1982, for the sale of equipment and molds;61 (2) a 1984 letter
`
`from the Vice-President of Chemical Bank to Plaintiff, in which Chemical Bank confirms that it had
`
`assigned molds and equipment to Plaintiff and that Chemical Bank would not “assert any patent or
`
`copyright rights it had as a successor to Louis Marx & Co., Inc. or its affiliated companies to object
`
`to your use of those molds and dies or the sale of products made from them”;62 and (3) a June 1988
`
`letter to Mr. Horowitz from Chemical Bank enclosing three bills of sale which state that Chemical
`
`Bank is transferring to Plaintiff Chemical Bank’s “interest, if any, in all of the trademarks, patents,
`
`copyrights and related goodwill formerly owned by Louis Marx & Co.” to Plaintiff.63
`
`The second declaration is that of Barry Piels, who states that he was general counsel to Louis
`
`Marx & Co. from 1978 to June 1982.64 Mr. Piels states that Chemical Bank became the owner of
`
`Louis Marx & Co.’s intellectual property assets through the Louis Marx & Co. bankruptcy
`
`proceedings and that Chemical Bank had the power and authority to transfer or assign those rights.65
`
`Attached to Mr. Piels’ declaration are the Bankruptcy Court Order and the other bankruptcy
`
`60Second Horowitz Decl., ¶ 4.
`
`61See Second Horowitz Decl., Ex. 1.
`
`62See Second Horowitz Decl., Ex. 2.
`
`63See Second Horowitz Decl., Ex. 3.
`
`64Piels Decl., ¶ 4.
`
`65Id., ¶¶ 5-7.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02253-DJW Document 97 Filed 03/31/10 Page 14 of 27
`
`documents discussed above.66 Plaintiff provides Mr. Piels’ declaration to authenticate the
`
`bankruptcy documents and to provide further support for its position that Chemical Bank did in fact
`
`acquire the copyrights from Louis Marx & Co. through the bankruptcy proceedings and through the
`
`letter agreement attached to the April 15, 1982 Bankruptcy Court Order.
`
`The third declaration is that of Robert Strauss, who indicates that he is president of David
`
`Strauss & Co., Inc., the company which was retained by Chemical Bank in 1982 to appraise and
`
`liquidate Louis Marx & Co.’s assets.67 Mr. Strauss states in his declaration that David Strauss & Co.
`
`sold Louis Marx & Co.’s “production molds” to Plaintiff in October 1982 and that the sale “was
`
`made under authority of and approved by Chemical Bank.”68 Attached to Mr. Strauss’ declaration
`
`is “a hand-written invoice from [David Strauss & Co., Inc.] to American Plastic on the date of the
`
`sale in October, 1983 signed by my father.”69 Plaintiff asserts that this invoice is “a hand-written
`
`assignment from Strauss to American Plastic . . . which

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket