WESLEY E. BROWN, U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the court on Holmes' Motion for an Injunction Against Relitigation. (Doc. 75). The court finds that oral argument would not assist in deciding the motion. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the motion should be denied.
Holmes' motion for an injunction against relitigation follows in the wake of this court's order granting summary judgment to Holmes on its claim for declaratory relief on Count 1. The court's ruling was based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and is now on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Holmes asks for an injunction prohibiting Vornado from pursuing its related trade dress claim before the International Trade Commission. Although the court denied this same request at the preliminary injunction stage of this case, Holmes contends such an injunction is now appropriate in view of the final judgment entered on Count
1.
The parties' briefs focus primarily on whether or not the court has the power to grant the requested injunction. Even assuming the court has that power, the court concludes it would be inappropriate to exercise it in these circumstances. The court again concludes, as it did in considering the preliminary injunction, that the public interest weighs against the issuance of an injunction preventing Vornado from asserting its claim before the ITC. Such an injunction would interfere with the jurisdiction of the ITC and the statutory scheme adopted by Congress to address claims of unfair trade practices in imported articles. It is up to the ITC to determine what effect this court's judgment has on the claims before it. If the ITC errs in its determination, as Holmes argues it will, Holmes may seek review of the ITC's ruling in the Federal Circuit. But in light of Vornado's recent appeal in the instant case, the question of whether or not collateral estoppel bars Vornado's trade dress claim is already effectively before the Federal Circuit. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that the matter is now up to the Federal Circuit, and that issuance of an injunction against relitigation would be inappropriate.
Conclusion.
Holmes' Motion for Injunction Against Relitigation (Doc. 75) is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this Day of June, 2000 at Wichita, Ks.