V.v.v. & Sons Edible Oils Limited, a Public Limited Company v. MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS
LIMITED, a Public Limited Company,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS, LLC, a New
Jersey Limited Liability Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23-15532
D.C. No.
2:14-cv-02961-DJC-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
FEB 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

(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

-- 2 of 3 --

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.
3

-- 3 of 3 --