Parody Defense: No Laughing Matter for Brand Owners. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir.
|
|
- Lilian Daniels
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Parody Defense: No Laughing Matter for Brand Owners Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) 1 By Sherry H. Flax In Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC,. 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007), the United States Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit ( Fourth Circuit or Court ) dealt for the first time with a claim for violation of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 ( TDRA ), 15 U.S.C.A 1125(c) (West Supp. 2007), by Louis Vuitton S.A. ( LVM ), a luxury fashion designer, against Haute Diggity Dog ( Haute ), a small pet toy company. The Court affirmed the district court s ruling on summary judgment that a pet chew toy that closely resembles LVM s luxury handbags was a successful parody. The Court applied the factors laid out in the TDRA in concluding that the parody mark was not likely to dilute the famous mark because similarities between the handbags and the dog toy were not too close as to destroy the parody and dilute the value of the famous and distinctive Louis Vuitton mark. THE DISTRICT COURT CASE LVM, a Paris based manufacturer of luxury luggage, handbags, and accessories, including dog collars, leashes, and pet carriers, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Haute, a Nevada corporation that manufactures and sells luxury pet products. The suit alleged: (1) trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C 1114(1)(a); (2) trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c); (3) copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 501; and (4) related statutory and common law violations. The item in question was a small plush dog s chew toy, labeled as Chewy Vuiton that resembled a LVM handbag. 2 On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of Haute on all of LVM s claims. Namely, the district court ruled that the conclusion that Haute s product was a successful parody of the LVM products was sufficient as a matter of law to defeat LVM s claims. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court s ruling based on a slightly different analysis. 2 The company also manufactures other items based on famous brands: Chewnel No. 5 (Chanel No. 5); Furcedes (Mercedes); Jimmy Chew (Jimmy Choo); Dog Perignonn (Dom Perignon); Sniffany & Co. (Tiffany & Co.); and others. 1 Sherry Flax is a Partner with Saul Ewing LLP s Intellectual Property Practice Group and is Chair of the Publications Committee of the MSBA Intellectual Property Section. 2 The company also manufactures other items based on famous brands: Chewnel No. 5 (Chanel No. 5); Furcedes (Mercedes); Jimmy Chew (Jimmy Choo); Dog Perignonn (Dom Perignon); Sniffany & Co. (Tiffany & Co.); and others.
2 ANALYSIS OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DECISION A. Trademark Infringement Claim LVM argued that the marketing and sale of the dog toy bearing the Chewy Vuiton name infringed its trademark because there was a strong likelihood of confusion. For a holder of a trademark to succeed on this claim, it must show: (1) that it owns a valid and protectable mark; (2) that the defendant uses a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of that mark in commerce and without the holder s consent; and (3) that the defendant s use is likely to cause confusion. In this case, the first two prongs of this analysis were not in dispute. The Court noted that Haute s toys undisputedly evoke LVM handbags of similar shape, design, and color. In lieu of the LOUIS VUITTON mark, the dog toy uses "Chewy Vuiton"; in lieu of the LV mark, it uses "CV"; and the other symbols and colors employed are imitations, but not exact ones, of those used in the LVM Multicolor and Cherry designs. The court went on to discuss whether the Chewy Vuiton dog toy was likely to cause consumer confusion. Likelihood of confusion is based on: (1) the strength or distinctiveness of the plaintiff s mark; (2) the similarity of the two marks; (3) the similarity of the goods or services the marks identify; (4) the similarity of the facilities the two parties use in their businesses; (5) the similarity of the advertising used by the two parties; (6) the defendant s intent; and (7) actual confusion. Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1527 (4th Cir. 1984). Haute argued, and the Court agreed, that the parody nature of its product should be considered when evaluating these factors. A parody is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark s owner. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney ( PETA ), 263 F.3d 359, 366 (4th Cir. 2001) The Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court in concluding that Haute s product was a successful parody of the 31
3 LVM product. The court explained that the Haute product was an obvious irreverent representation of the original that immediately conveys a joking and amusing parody. Next, the court concluded that the differences between the original and the copy were obvious and immediate. Lastly, when it compared the similarities and differences between the two products, the court found that the Chewy Vuiton product immediately conveyed a joking parody because a luxury item is not meant to be chewed by a dog. A successful parody influences the application of the Pizzeria Uno factors. In applying the factors, the Court heavily weighed the fact that the Chewy Vuiton product was a successful parody. The court finally held that LVM failed to demonstrate the likelihood of confusion between the two products. B. TDRA Claim LVM alleged that the Chewy Vuiton dog toy would blur and dilute the LVM trademarks because it is likely to impair the distinctiveness of the mark. LVM argued that the successful parody should automatically give rise to an actionable dilution claim. Haute argued exactly the opposite: that a finding of a successful parody should be a complete bar to a TDRA claim. The court concluded that neither of these arguments were sound and looked to the statute for guidance. The recent revision to the TDRA provides in part: Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark... shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who... commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury. 15 U.S.C.A. 1125(c)(1). The statute defines famous as widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark s owner. Id. 1125(c)(2)(A). The statute also provides a definition for dilution by blurring as the association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Id. 1125(c)(2)(B). Lastly, the statute provides a definition for dilution by tarnishment as the association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark. Id. 1125(c)(2)(C). must show: The Fourth Circuit articulated a four-prong test for stating a claim under the TDRA. The plaintiff 32
4 1. that the plaintiff owns a famous mark that is distinctive; 2. that the defendant has commenced using a mark in commerce that allegedly is diluting the famous mark; 3. that a similarity between the defendant s mark and the famous mark gives rise to an association between the marks; and 4. that the association is likely to impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark or likely to harm the reputation of the famous mark. Louis Vuitton, 507 F.3d at The court noted that the distinctiveness of a famous mark, in the context of blurring, refers to the ability of the famous mark uniquely to identify a single source and thus maintain its selling power. Id. at 265. The Fourth Circuit explained that the first three elements of a TDRA claim were not at issue in this case because: (1) the LVM mark is distinctive; (2) Haute is using the mark in commerce; and (3) there is a similarity between the two marks. Thus, the only element at issue was whether the association between the two marks is likely to impair the distinctiveness or harm the reputation of the mark. Under the TDRA, all relevant factors should be considered. The statute provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to be used as guidance when considering whether use of a mark blurs another mark: (i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark. (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark. The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark. The degree of recognition of the famous mark. Whether the use of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark. Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark. 15 U.S.C.A. 1125(c)(2)(B). 33
5 The district court acknowledged the six factors but failed to apply them. Instead, it summarily concluded that the parody dog toy is not likely to blur the strength of the LVM marks. The Fourth Circuit gave short shrift to the factors, then reached the same conclusion as the district court. The Court began its analysis by deciding whether it should consider that the Haute product was a parody of the LVM product. It looked to the statutory language that explains that the court must look at all relevant factors including the six supplied. The court explained that because several of the factors invite an inquiry as to whether the defendant s use was a parody, the parody should be considered in determining whether the defendant s mark is likely to impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark. the fact that the defendant uses its marks as a parody is specifically relevant to factor (v) (whether the defendant intended to create an association with the famous mark) and factor (vi) (whether there exists an actual association between the defendant s mark and the famous mark) directly invite inquiries into the defendant s intent in using the parody, the defendant s actual use of the parody, and the effect that its use has on the famous mark. While a parody intentionally creates an association with the famous mark in order to be a parody, it also intentionally communicates, if it is successful, that it is not the famous mark, but rather a satire of the famous mark. See PETA, 263 F.3d at 366. Thus, the Court s conclusion that the Chewy Vuiton product was a successful parody was the single determinative factor in finding that the famous LVM marks were not diluted. Curiously, the Court went on to raise the burden of proof on LVM because the very facts that established its dilution claim impose on LVM an increased burden to demonstrate that the distinctiveness of its famous marks is likely to be impaired by the successful parody. Louis Vuitton, 507 F.3d at 267. The Court reasoned that the strength of LVM s marks makes it more likely that Haute s use would not impair the distinctiveness of the mark. CONCLUSION The Fourth Circuit stopped short of holding that parody is a complete defense to a TDRA claim. However, this decision indicates that it will be very difficult for the owner of a particularly strong famous mark to prevail on a dilution claim under the TDRA based on parody. 34
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER S.A v. HAUTE DIGGITY DOG, LLC 1:06cv321 (JCC) (E.D. Va. 2006)
Law 760: Trademarks & Unfair Competition Read for November 22, 2006 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER S.A v. HAUTE DIGGITY DOG, LLC 1:06cv321 (JCC) (E.D. Va. 2006) MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES C. CACHERIS, DISTRICT
More informationLOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER S.A., Plaintiff, v. HAUTE DIGGITY DOG, LLC, VICTORIA D.N. DAUERNHEIM, and WOOFIES, LLC, Defendants.
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER S.A., Plaintiff, v. HAUTE DIGGITY DOG, LLC, VICTORIA D.N. DAUERNHEIM, and WOOFIES, LLC, Defendants. OPINION BY: James C. Cacheris UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
More informationThe Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006: Facilitating Proof of Dilution for Truly Famous Marks. By Brian Darville and Anthony Palumbo
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006: Facilitating Proof of Dilution for Truly Famous Marks By Brian Darville and Anthony Palumbo Mr. Darville is a partner, and Mr. Palumbo, an associate, in the
More information464 F.Supp.2d 495 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page F.Supp.2d 495, 2006 Copr.L.Dec. P 29,284, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1064 (Cite as: 464 F.Supp.
464 F.Supp.2d 495 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1 United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER S.A., Plaintiff, v. HAUTE DIGGITY DOG, LLC, Victoria D.N. Dauernheim,
More informationTrademark Board Finds CRACKBERRY Infringing and Not a Parody of BLACKBERRY
Trademark Board Finds CRACKBERRY Infringing and Not a Parody of BLACKBERRY by Timothy J. Lockhart Timothy J. Lockhart heads the Intellectual Property Group at Willcox Savage. Lockhart concentrates his
More informationTRADEMARKS & FREEDOM OF
TRADEMARKS & FREEDOM OF SPEECH Jordi Güell Lawyer, CURELL SUÑOL 28th ECTA Annual Conference, Vilnius June 2009 Freedom of Speech Preliminary remarks Different forms of speech Unauthorised trademark use
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 16-241, Document 133-1, 12/22/2016, 1933764, Page1 of 6 16-241-cv Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY
More informationMastercard Int'l Inc. v. Nader Primary Comm., Inc WL , 2004 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 3644 (2004)
DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 15 Issue 1 Fall 2004 Article 9 Mastercard Int'l Inc. v. Nader Primary Comm., Inc. 2004 WL 434404, 2004 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 3644 (2004)
More informationOf Chew Toys and Designer Handbags: A Critical Analysis of the Parody Exception under the U.S. Trademark Dilution Revision Act
Campbell Law Review Volume 35 Issue 1 Fall 2012 Article 3 2012 Of Chew Toys and Designer Handbags: A Critical Analysis of the Parody Exception under the U.S. Trademark Dilution Revision Act Eugene C. Lim
More informationCase 2:15-cv DDP-JPR Document 31 Filed 12/15/15 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:229
Case :-cv-00-ddp-jpr Document Filed // Page of Page ID #: O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DC COMICS, v. MAD ENGINE, INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. Case No. CV -00 DDP (JPRx ORDER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION ' '
THE MARSHALL TUCKER BAND, INC. and DOUG GRAY, Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:16-00420-MGL M T INDUSTRIES,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LOCHIRCO FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., and THE HAPPY APPLE COMPANY,
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 0 0 ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LOCHIRCO FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., and THE HAPPY APPLE COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs, TARUKINO
More informationIt s a brave new world for trademark
Volume 20, No. 2 Winter 2009 Committee Cochairs Mike Garvin Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP Cleveland, OH mjgarvin@hahnlaw.com John P. Hutchins Troutman Sanders LLP Atlanta, GA john.hutchins@troutmansanders.com
More informationProving Dilution. William Fisher
2012, William Fisher. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License. November 8, 2012 Proving Dilution William Fisher Federal Trademark Anti-Dilution
More informationTrademarks in 2010 (and 2011): Dilution Takes Center Stage
The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Intellectual Property Journal Akron Law Journals March 2016 Trademarks in 2010 (and 2011): Dilution Takes Center Stage David S. Welkowitz Please take a
More informationUNIT 16. Today A brief digression about First Amendment Law Rights of Publicity
UNIT 16 Today A brief digression about First Amendment Law Rights of Publicity CB 689-714: Intro to Dilution Lanham Act 43(c), (15 U.S.C. 1124(c), 15 U.S.C. 1127) Regular TM law e.g. infringement is about
More informationTRADEMARKS IN 2010 (AND 2011): DILUTION TAKES CENTER STAGE
TRADEMARKS IN 2010 (AND 2011): DILUTION TAKES CENTER STAGE David S. Welkowitz * I. Introduction... 45 II. The Return (Revenge?) of Victoria s Secret... 46 III. When is evisa not a Visa?... 48 IV. Similarity
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:1
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 CHRISTOPHER S. RUHLAND (SBN 0) Email: christopher.ruhland@ dechert.com MICHELLE M. RUTHERFORD (SBN ) Email: michelle.rutherford@ dechert.com US Bank
More informationCase 1:13-cv LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8. : Plaintiffs, : : : Defendants. :
Case 113-cv-01787-LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X BLOOMBERG, L.P.,
More informationCase 8:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Michael K. Friedland (SBN, michael.friedland@knobbe.com Lauren Keller Katzenellenbogen (SBN,0 lauren.katzenellenbogen@knobbe.com Ali S. Razai (SBN,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals. for the Second Circuit LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A., MY OTHER BAG, INC.,
16-0241-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MY OTHER BAG, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationCARDSERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. WEBSTER R. McGEE, and WRM & ASSOCIATES, d/b/a/ EMS - Card Service on the Caprock, Defendants.
CARDSERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. WEBSTER R. McGEE, and WRM & ASSOCIATES, d/b/a/ EMS - Card Service on the Caprock, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:96cv896 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Yeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC Doc. 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION YETI COOLERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. 1:16-CV-264-RP RTIC COOLERS, LLC, RTIC
More informationRecent Developments in Trademark and Unfair Competition Law May 8, 2008 IP Innovations Teleconference
May 8, 2008 IP Innovations Teleconference Ted Davis Kilpatrick Stockton LLP TDavis@KilpatrickStockton.com 1 Highlights of the Past Year the continued preoccupation of courts with the concept of use in
More informationCase 2:07-cv CM-JPO Document 1 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:07-cv-02334-CM-JPO Document 1 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS PAYLESS SHOESOURCE WORLDWIDE, INC. ) a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al Doc. 1 GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES James A. Lowe (SBN Brian S. Edwards (SBN 00 Von Karman, Suite 00 Irvine, California 1 Telephone: ( - Facsimile:
More informationCase 2:12-cv TC Document 2 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:12-cv-01124-TC Document 2 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 16 Joseph Pia, joe.pia@padrm.com (9945) Tyson B. Snow tsnow@padrm.com (10747) Fili Sagapulete fili@padrm.com (13348) PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD
More informationCase 2:17-cv JFW-JC Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:1
Case :-cv-0-jfw-jc Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: North Central Avenue Suite 00 0 GARY J. NELSON, CA Bar No. GNelson@lrrc.com ANNE WANG, CA Bar No. 000 AWang@lrrc.com DREW WILSON, CA Bar No. DWilson@lrrc.com
More informationTrademark Laws: New York
Martin Thomas Photography / Alamy Stock Photo Trademark Laws: New York The State Q&A guides on Practical Law provide common questions and answers on state-specific content for a variety of topics and practice
More informationCASE SUMMARIES UNDER THE TRADEMARK DILUTION REVISION ACT (2008)
CASE SUMMARIES UNDER THE TRADEMARK DILUTION REVISION ACT (2008) During the committee term, the Dilution Committee: North America Subcommittee summarized caselaw as part of its committee objectives. This
More informationCase 1:14-cv CMA Document 14 Filed 05/02/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9
Case 1:14-cv-01178-CMA Document 14 Filed 05/02/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 14-cv-01178-CMA-MEH IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TELETECH CUSTOMER CARE MANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA), INC., formerly known as TELETECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, a California Corporation,
More informationCase 2:13-cv J Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1
Case 2:13-cv-00118-J Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION COACH, INC. AND COACH SERVICES, INC. vs. Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:17-cv-01530-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DENTSPLY SIRONA INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. ) NET32, INC., ) JURY DEMANDED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Case 1:18-cv-01140-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA Muscle Flex, Inc., a California corporation Civil Action
More informationPrank as Parody? By James W. Faris
Prank as Parody? By James W. Faris A new tactic employed by some activist groups in recent years is to impersonate large corporations and other persons whose policies the activists dislike by creating
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Chris West and Automodeals, LLC, Plaintiffs, 5:16-cv-1205 v. Bret Lee Gardner, AutomoDeals Inc., Arturo Art Gomez Tagle, and
More informationTrade Dress Rights Enforcement: Prosecuting Infringement Claims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Trade Dress Rights Enforcement: Prosecuting Infringement Claims Proving Protectable Trade Dress and Likelihood of Confusion, Defeating Defenses
More informationIC 24-2 ARTICLE 2. TRADEMARKS, TRADE NAMES, AND TRADE SECRETS
IC 24-2 ARTICLE 2. TRADEMARKS, TRADE NAMES, AND TRADE SECRETS IC 24-2-1 Chapter 1. Trademark Act IC 24-2-1-0.1 Application of certain amendments to chapter Sec. 0.1. The following amendments to this chapter
More informationGIBSON LOWRY BURRIS LLP
Case :0-cv-000 Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 STEVEN A. GIBSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. sgibson@gibsonlowry.com J. SCOTT BURRIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 sburris@gibsonlowry.com GIBSON LOWRY BURRIS LLP City Center
More informationCase: Document: 49 Date Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No.
Case: 09-1397 Document: 49 Date Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1397 SUPER DUPER, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Super Duper Publications, Plaintiff
More informationUNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK LAW Third Edition
UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK LAW Third Edition (2016 Pub.3162) UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK LAW Third Edition Mary LaFrance IGT Professor of Intellectual Property Law William S. Boyd School of Law University of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.
Parts.Com, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. Doc. 0 0 PARTS.COM, LLC, vs. YAHOO! INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant. CASE NO. -CV-0 JLS (JMA) ORDER: () GRANTING DEFENDANT
More informationUnited States District Court
Case :0-cv-0-WHA Document Filed 0//00 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, v. Plaintiff, DENISE RICKETTS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:18-cv-09902-DSF-AGR Document 23 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:299 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES TODD SMITH, Plaintiff, v. GUERILLA UNION, INC., et al.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 18-C-213 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN SILGAN CONTAINERS LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-C-213 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Defendant. ORDER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:13-CV-679 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:13-CV-679 COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC., v. Plaintiffs, SUN SUPER MARKET, INC. and MI KYONG
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Mon Cheri Bridals, LLC ) ) v. ) Case No. 18-2516 ) John Does 1-81 ) Judge: ) ) Magistrate: ) ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Order delivered on: 20 th August, CS (OS) No.1668/2013. versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: 20 th August, 2015 + CS (OS) No.1668/2013 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER... Plaintiff Through Mr.Dhruv Anand, Adv. versus MR.MANOJ KHURANA & ORS....
More informationTrademark Litigation Issues
Trademark Litigation Issues Presented By: Frank Angileri October 19, 2011 OVERVIEW Trademark Rights Infringement Surveys Remedies Trademark Rights? SOURCE IDENTIFIER v. Right to Compete The Spectrum of
More informationCase 1:12-cv LTS-SN Document 38 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 12. No. 12 Civ (LTS)(SN)
Case 1:12-cv-04204-LTS-SN Document 38 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC,
More informationCD SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. John Cleven TOOKER, Commercial Printing Co., and CDS Networks, Inc., Defendants. Civil No HA.
CD SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. John Cleven TOOKER, Commercial Printing Co., and CDS Networks, Inc., Defendants. Civil No. 97-793-HA. 15 F.Supp.2d 986 United States District Court, D. Oregon. April 22,
More informationMove or Destroy Provision Is Key To Ex Parte Relief In Trademark Counterfeiting Cases
Move or Destroy Provision Is Key To Ex Parte Relief In Trademark Counterfeiting Cases An ex parte seizure order permits brand owners to enter an alleged trademark counterfeiter s business unannounced and
More informationCourthouse News Service
Case :-cv-000-kjd-pal Document Filed 0// Page of Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 00 Las Vegas, Nevada 0 MICHAEL J. McCUE (Nevada Bar No. 0) JENNIFER K. CRAFT (Nevada Bar No. 0) LEWIS AND ROCA LLP Howard Hughes
More informationOfficial Journal of the International Trademark Association
Official Journal of the International Trademark Association A Search-Costs Theory of Limiting Doctrines in Trademark Law By Stacey L. Dogan and Mark A. Lemley The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006:
More information2. Model Act Provisions The Idaho registration statute adopts the 1992 version of the Model Act. I.C
Last Updated: March 2017 Idaho Patrick J. Kole, Esq.* Boise, ID A. State Trademark Registration Statute 1. Code Section Idaho s state registration statute is I.C. 48-501 et seq. (1996). Idaho s registration
More informationAvery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999)
DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall 1999: Symposium - Theft of Art During World War II: Its Legal and Ethical Consequences Article 12 Avery Dennison Corp.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD., a corporation of the Cayman Islands; WUXI SUNTECH POWER CO., LTD., a corporation of the People s Republic
More informationA Twenty Year Retrospective on Trademark Law in Ten Cases
A Twenty Year Retrospective on Trademark Law in Ten Cases Marshall Leaffer Indiana University Maurer School of Law mleaffer@indiana.edu For my presentation I have made a personal selection of the 10 cases
More informationCase 1:16-cv GAO Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND PARTIES
Case 1:16-cv-11565-GAO Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS THE LIFE IS GOOD COMPANY, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) C.A. No. ) OOSHIRTS INC., ) Defendant
More informationJeff Foxworthy case edited for classroom use trademark issue only. 879 F.Supp (1995)
Jeff Foxworthy case edited for classroom use trademark issue only 879 F.Supp. 1200 (1995) Jeff FOXWORTHY v. CUSTOM TEES, INC., and Stewart R. Friedman [1]. No. 1:94-CV-3477-RCF. United States District
More informationLAMPARELLO V. FALWELL
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 10 Fall 9-1-2006 LAMPARELLO V. FALWELL Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj
More informationCase 2:18-cv JAD-CWH Document 1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 17
Case :-cv-00-jad-cwh Document Filed // Page of 0 0 MICHAEL D. ROUNDS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. MATTHEW D. FRANCIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. PETER H. AJEMIAN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. SAMANTHA J. REVIGLIO, ESQ. Nevada
More informationCase 1:07-cv LTS Document 1 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-02249-LTS Document 1 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 20 Jonathan S. Pollack (JP 9043) Attorney at Law 274 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 889-0761 Facsimile: (212) 889-0279
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION KING S HAWAIIAN BAKERY SOUTHEAST, INC., a Georgia corporation; KING S HAWAIIAN HOLDING COMPANY, INC., a California corporation;
More informationCase 9:13-cv KLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No.
Case 9:13-cv-80700-KLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/19/2013 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. THE ESTATE OF MARILYN MONROE, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. MONROE
More informationRESCUECOM CORPORATION v. GOOGLE, INC. 456 F. Supp. 2d 393 (N.D.N.Y. 2006)
RESCUECOM CORPORATION v. GOOGLE, INC 456 F. Supp. 2d 393 (N.D.N.Y. 2006) Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Google, Inc., moves to dismiss plaintiff
More informationTULANE JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
TULANE JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VOLUME e16 SPRING 2014 Maker s Mark v. Diageo: How Jose Cuervo Made Its Mark with the Infamous Dripping Red Wax Seal Cite as: e16 TUL. J. TECH. &
More informationCase 3:10-cv VLB Document 114 Filed 07/04/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 310-cv-01750-VLB Document 114 Filed 07/04/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JOANNE PEDERSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 310-cv-1750 (VLB) OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
More informationFordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 23, Issue 2 2013 Article 10 VOLUME XXIII BOOK 1 A Twenty-Year Retrospective on United States Trademark Law in Ten Cases Marshall
More informationCase 1:14-cv RWZ Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:14-cv-12053-RWZ Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KEDS, LLC, and SR HOLDINGS, LLC, v. VANS, INC., Plaintiffs, Defendant.
More informationCase 1:14-cv JMF Document 176 Filed 01/08/18 Page 1 of 11. : : Plaintiff, : : Defendant. : :
Case 114-cv-03419-JMF Document 176 Filed 01/08/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X LOUIS
More information(Argued: February 19, 2014 Decided: May 13, 2015)
--cv(l) U.S. Polo Ass n, Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 01 (Argued: February 1, 0 Decided: May 1, 0) Docket Nos.
More informationTHE LAW ON TRADEMARKS 1. Article 1
THE LAW ON TRADEMARKS 1 Article 1 (1) This Law shall govern the manner of acquisition and the protection of rights with respect to marks used in trade of goods and/or services. (2) A trademark shall be
More informationAct No. 8 of 2015 BILL
Legal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 54, No. 64, 16th June, 2015 Fifth Session Tenth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No. 8 of
More informationCase 1:04-cv RJS Document 90 Filed 09/13/10 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:04-cv-04607-RJS Document 90 Filed 09/13/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TIFFANY (NJ) INC. & TIFFANY AND CO., Plaintiffs, No. 04 Civ. 4607 (RJS) -v- EBAY,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :
Brent T. Winder (USB #8765) Brent A. Orozco (USB #9572) JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH PC Attorneys for Maggie Sottero Designs, LLC 170 South Main Street, Suite 1500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone
More informationAshok M. Pinto * I. INTRODUCTION
NO SECRETS ALLOWED: THE SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION ACT REQUIRES PROOF OF ACTUAL DILUTION IN MOSELEY v. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. Ashok M. Pinto * I. INTRODUCTION In Moseley
More information1 ORDER AND JUDGMENT CASE NO. CV JAK (MANX) Dockets.Justia.com
Borden Co (PTE) Ltd et al v. Grandway Enterprises Inc et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 BORDEN CO. (PTE) LTD., a Singapore company, ANHING CORPORATION,
More informationBoston University Journal of Science & Technology Law
5 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 15 June 1, 1999 Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law Legal Update Trademark Dilution: Only the Truly Famous Need Apply John D. Mercer * 1. In I.P. Lund Trading
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, v. Plaintiff, 2600 ENTERPRISES, a New York not-forprofit corporation,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES, L.P., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, COMICMIX LLC; GLENN HAUMAN; DAVID JERROLD FRIEDMAN a/k/a JDAVID GERROLD; and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. PS AUDIO, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES ALLEN, an individual, Defendant. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
More information4 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 87. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADEMARK LAW
4 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 87 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, 1995 Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADEMARK LAW Rose A. Hagan a1 Copyright (c) 1995 by the State Bar of Texas, Intellectual
More informationCase 2:11-cv CEH-DNF Document 1 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 55 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-00392-CEH-DNF Document 1 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 55 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION PHELAN HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a PINCHER=S CRAB SHACK,
More informationCase 4:18-cv HSG Document 46 Filed 02/07/19 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-hsg Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 NITA BATRA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. POPSUGAR, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-hsg ORDER DENYING
More informationUnited States District Court Central District of California Western Division
0 0 United States District Court Central District of California Western Division LECHARLES BENTLEY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, NBC UNIVERSAL, LLC, et al., Defendants. CV -0 TJH (KSx) Order The Court has considered
More informationTHE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TRADEMARK LAW
THE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TRADEMARK LAW Effective from May 1, 2014 CHINA TRADEMARK LAW Effective from May 1 st, 2014 Adopted at the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People
More informationCase 1:14-cv JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1
Case 1:14-cv-00026-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CONTOUR HARDENING, INC. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Brent H. Blakely (SBN bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com Cindy Chan (SBN cchan@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP Parkview Avenue, Suite 0 Manhattan
More informationINTRODUCTION. Plaintiff Crazy Dog T-Shirts, Inc. ( Plaintiff ) initiated this action on December 11,
Crazy Dog T-Shirts, Inc. v. Design Factory Tees, Inc. et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CRAZY DOG T-SHIRTS, INC., v. Plaintiff, Case # 15-CV-6740-FPG DEFAULT JUDGMENT
More informationFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) BACKGROUND
0 0 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ultimate Creations, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff, vs. THQ Inc., a corporation, Defendant. FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV-0--PHX-SMM ORDER Pending
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULING. Sticks and stones may break bones but words can never hurt, or so the adage
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JAY DARDENNE VERSUS CIVIL ACTION 14-00150-SDD-SCR MOVEON.ORG CIVIL ACTION RULING I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE Sticks and stones may break
More informationREVISED APRIL 26, 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No No TMI INC, Plaintiff-Appellee
REVISED APRIL 26, 2004 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 03-20243 No. 03-20291 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
More informationCZECH REPUBLIC Trademark Act No. 441/2003 Coll. of December 3, 2003 ENTRY INTO FORCE: April 1, 2004
CZECH REPUBLIC Trademark Act No. 441/2003 Coll. of December 3, 2003 ENTRY INTO FORCE: April 1, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I TRADE MARKS CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Definition of a trade mark Section
More informationCase 1:13-cv CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2013 Page 1 of 17
Case 1:13-cv-20345-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2013 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationCase 3:17-cv JCH Document 1 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Case No.
Case 3:17-cv-01907-JCH Document 1 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PEAK WELLNESS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, Case No. Plaintiff, v.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM. DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge
Case 2:11-cv-01565-DSF -VBK Document 19 Filed 03/03/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:690 Case No. CV 11-1565 DSF (VBKx) Date 3/3/11 Title Tacori Enterprises v. Scott Kay, Inc. Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-165 ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-165 EAGLES NEST OUTFITTERS, INC., Plaintiff DYLAN HEWLETT, D/B/A BEAR BUTT, Defendant.
More informationCase 5:14-cv FB Document 13 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Case :14-cv-0028-FB Document 13 Filed 0/21/14 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ALAMO BREWING CO., LLC, v. Plaintiff, OLD 300 BREWING, LLC dba TEXIAN
More information