V.V v. & Sons Edible Oils Limited v. Meenakshi Overseas, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 1, 2024
• Docket: 23-15532
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 1 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS No. 23-15532 LIMITED, a Public Limited Company, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:14-cv-02961-DJC-CKD

v. MEMORANDUM* MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel J. Calabretta, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 12, 2024 Pasadena, California

Before: BOGGS,** RAWLINSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

In V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited v. Meenakshi Overseas, LLC, 946 F.3d

542 (9th Cir. 2019) (“VVV I”), Appellant V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. (VVV) appealed the dismissal of its trademark claims for three marks: (1) the mark

“IDHAYAM” for sesame oil products, Reg. No. 4,006,654 (the ‘654 Mark); (2) the

mark “IDHAYAM” for a variety of cooking oil products, Reg. No. 4,225,172 (the

‘172 Mark); and (3) the mark “IDHAYAM SOUTH INDIAN DELITE” for a

variety of cooking oil and staple food products, Reg. No. 4,334,000 (the ‘000

Mark). We reversed the district court’s dismissal of VVV’s claims as to the ‘654

Mark, and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims regarding the other

two marks based on VVV’s non-opposition to dismissal of those claims. See id. at

546–47.

On remand, the district court entered final judgment as to the dismissal with

prejudice of all claims relating to the ‘172 and ‘000 Marks. VVV now appeals that

judgment, contending that the district court misinterpreted the mandate to mean

that it no longer had jurisdiction to consider claims relating to the ‘172 and ‘000

Marks. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see

Creech v. Tewalt, 84 F.4th 777, 787 (9th Cir. 2023), we affirm.

The rule of mandate requires the district court to strictly comply with the

mandate of the appellate court. See id. Particularly, “the mandate of an appellate

court forecloses the lower court from reconsidering matters determined in the

appellate court.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Our mandate

2 in VVV I was clear. We expressly reserved only the claims relating to the ‘654

Mark to be considered by the district court on remand. VVV I, 946 F.3d at 547.

Under the mandate, the claims relating to the ‘172 and ‘000 Marks were

foreclosed. See id. The district court complied with the mandate in dismissing

those claims with prejudice. We are not persuaded by VVV’s arguments to the

contrary.

AFFIRMED.