Upmann Sanchez Turf and Landscape v. US Turf

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01749
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 UPMANN SANCHEZ TURF AND Case No. 2:21-CV-1749 JCM (DJA) LANDSCAPE dba US TURF, 8 ORDER Plaintiff(s), 9 v. 10 US TURF LLC, 11 Defendant(s). 12

13 Presently before the court is defendant and counterclaimant US Turf, LLC’s motion for 14 clarification of the court’s order and judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). 15 (ECF No. 63). No response was filed. 16 Plaintiff Upmann Sanchez Turf and Landscape, Inc., dba US Turf, filed the instant action 17 alleging claims under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and 18 requesting injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s claims are premised in part on its U.S. 19 Trademark Registration No. 6,439,091 for the word mark “US Turf.” (Id.). 20 Defendant counterclaimed for cancellation of the ‘091 Registration on grounds that the 21 mark is primarily geographically and lacked secondary meaning. (ECF No. 11). The court granted 22 summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim under 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(2), 1064, and 1119. 23 (ECF No. 63). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) permits the court to correct a clerical mistake or a 25 mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment or order. The 26 Ninth Circuit recognizes that this rule encompasses clarifications necessary to ensure a judgment 27 properly reflects the courts intent. Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574 (9th Cir. 1987). 28 1 Further, a federal court may determine the right to registration, order the cancellation of 2 registration, and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the registrations of any party to the 3 action. 15 U.S.C. § 1119. A court’s final judgment cancelling a registration must specifically 4 identify the registration and direct the USPO to act. Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc., 5 738 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2013). 6 Though the court’s intent was clear, the court’s judgment order did not expressly instruct 7 the Director of the USPTO to cancel the registration. Thus, the court now clarifies its prior ruling 8 and explicitly orders cancellation of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,439,091. 9 Accordingly, 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendant’s motion amend 11 pursuant to Rule 60(a) (ECF No. 63) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 12 The court’s final judgment is HEREBY AMENDED to ORDER the Director of the U.S. 13 Patent and Trademark Office to cancel U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,439,091. The case 14 remains closed. 15 DATED August 21, 2025.

16 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28