Grunt Style LLC v. TWD, LLC

140 F.4th 839 · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · June 12, 2025 · No. 25-1305

Summary

This Seventh Circuit per curiam opinion addresses procedural issues arising when a district court’s final judgment fails to explicitly dispose of a party’s counterclaims. The court holds that while the omission creates potential jurisdictional ambiguity under Rule 58, it constitutes a clerical mistake correctable under Rule 60(a). Consequently, the appellate court remands the case to the district court solely to amend the judgment to reflect the resolution of all claims, while retaining jurisdiction over the primary appeal. Additionally, the court dismisses a second, duplicative notice of appeal without assessing a filing fee.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Hamilton; Kirsch; Lee
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
June 12, 2025
Docket number
25-1305
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; district court judgment silent on counterclaims; duplicate appeal filed.
Precedential value
published
Parties
TWD, LLC v. Grunt Style LLC
Disposition
remanded

Topics

appellate jurisdictionfinal judgment ruleappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureintellectual property

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a district court judgment that is silent on counterclaims constitutes a final decision for appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291.
  2. Whether a district court may correct a clerical mistake in its judgment while an appeal is pending without remand.
  3. Whether the second notice of appeal (No. 25-1341) is duplicative and should be dismissed.

Holdings

  1. A judgment that omits resolution of counterclaims is still a final decision for purposes of appellate jurisdiction; the omission is a clerical mistake, not a jurisdictional defect.
  2. Correction of a clerical mistake in a judgment while an appeal is pending requires the appellate court’s leave, typically effected by remanding the case.
  3. The duplicate appeal (No. 25‑1341) is unnecessary and is dismissed without assessment of a fee.

Key quotations

We will remand for correction of what is best deemed a clerical mistake in the judgment. (at 839)
We DISMISS appeal No. 25-1341 as unnecessary. No fee shall be collected for that appeal. (at 839)

Factual background

TWD, a California LLC, alleged that Grunt Style infringed its trademark. Grunt Style responded with counterclaims asserting that TWD infringed Grunt Style's prior trademark. The district court ultimately entered a judgment in Grunt Style's favor for damages and injunction, but failed to address TWD's counterclaims.

Procedural history

TWD sued Grunt Style for trademark infringement; Grunt Style counterclaimed. District court granted partial summary judgment for Grunt Style, later entered a judgment awarding $739,500 plus interest and injunction. The judgment omitted any disposition of TWD's counterclaims, prompting appellate review. TWD filed two appeals (Nos. 25-1305 and 25-1341). The Seventh Circuit considered jurisdictional implications of the omission and the propriety of a duplicate appeal.

Remand instructions

Correct the judgment to include the resolution of TWD’s counterclaims and any associated interest and injunction, then file a status report within one week.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…