Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION* SETTING OUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1 LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge. The plaintiffs, T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Deutsche Telekom AG (together, “T-Mobile”), moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the defendant, Aio Wireless LLC, from using a plum color as a central part of its

DAVID HITTNER, United States District Judge Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion For Permanent Injunction (Document No. 172), Rust-Oleum's Motion for Entry of Judgment Denying ITW Any Monetary Relief (Document No. 176), and Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest (Document No. 174). Having considered the motions, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines the motions should be granted in p

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HON. KEITH P. ELLISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ' This is a trademark infringement case between two companies that deliver, service and remove on-site portable toilets, dumpster units, and restroom trailers. Pending before the Court are both parties’ motions for summary judgment, as well as the Defendant’s motion to strike. (Doc. Nos. 29, 30 and 43.

FILED May 08 2020, 8:32 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

MEMORANDUM OPINION SETTING OUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Table of Contents Introduction.. .795 I. Procedural Background... 797 A. The Evidence in the Record... 797 B. The Parties and the Products... 797 C. The Events Leading to this Litigation ...798 II.

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF MARKETQUEST'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 205]; (2) DENYING DEFENDANT BIC CORP.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 216]; AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS BIC USA AND NORWOOD'S MOTION

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A. JOE FISH, Senior United States District Judge Before the court is the motion of the plaintiffs, ADT LLC and ADT U.S. Holdings, Inc. (together “ADT”), for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons stated below, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background ADT prov

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GERALD BRUCE LEE, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on two sets of cross-motions for summary judgment. First, Plaintiff Pro-Footbálí, Inc. (“PFI”), Defendants Amanda Black-horse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Phillip Gov-er, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh (“Blackhorse Defendants”), and the United States of America, filed cross-motions for summary judgment on

ACCEPTED 06-15-00024-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 11/4/2015 4:20:17 PM

817 F.Supp. 850 (1992) Clara J. CHAR, Special Guardian, Guardian of the Property for Theodore S. Salsedo, Plaintiff, v. MATSON TERMINALS INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 91-00591 ACK. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. October 22, 1992. *851 Richard C. DeWaele, Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff. Anna M. Elento-Sneed, Pat

Opinion of the Court by MOON, C. J. Petitioner-appellant Nihi Lewa, Inc. (Nihi Lewa) seeks judicial review of the December 17, 1999 dismissal order of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, which denied Nihi Lewa’s request for administrative review. Nihi Lewa contends that the hearings officer erred in (1) dismissing its request for review as untimely under Hawai'

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Osram Sylvania Inc. (“Sylvania”) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona holding that Sylvania infringed Durel Corporation’s U.S. Patents 5,418,-062, 5,439,705, and 5,156,885. Durel Corp. v. Osram Sylvania Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1418, 1435 (D.Ariz.1998). Sylvania also appeals from the distric

ORDER A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Research In Motion, Ltd. (“RIM”). A re *1287 sponse thereto was invited by the court and filed by NTP, Inc. (“NTP”). Briefs of amicus curiae were filed by Earthlink, Inc.; The Canadian Chamber

Aept:^/, ' DDL 7 - 6i/ ~Ti^Ul,Nc>. 2.0to- /^iy> ,~fc>r}s ,/ _F^CtlC-l^_ A' RO^A^Tl Ct^CCl,i£c^

FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD

MEMORANDUM OPINION SETTING OUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1 Hon. Keith P. Ellison, United States District Judge In this trademark infringement action, Plaintiffs (“UH”) move for a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant Houston College of Law (formerly known as South Texas College of Law, and referred to herein as “Defendant”) from using the mark “HOUSTON COLLEGE

Court of APPEALS. OF NEVADA (O01 19478 <S@Einm 138 Nev., Advance Opinion D IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA YA-LING HUNG AND WEI-HSIANG No. 83197-COA HUNG, EACH INDIVIDUALLY, AS SURVIVING HEIRS, AND AS CO- ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF TUNG-TSUNG HUNG AND PI-LING LEE HUNG, ~ , .F | LE dD Appellants, ¢- JUN 30 2022 vs. " GENTING BERHAD; GENTING U.S. PI RT INTERACTIVE GAMING, INC.; GENTING NEVADA INTERACTIVE GAMING, LLC; AND RESORTS WORLD LAS VEGAS LLC, Respondents.

731 F.Supp. 1494 (1989) Lillian A. GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. No. 86-C-516-C. United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma. August 11, 1989. *1495 Craig Tweedy, Sapulpa, Okl., and R.V. Funk, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff. Frederic N. Schneider, III and Kimberly A. Lambert,

ACCEPTED 07-15-00244-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 6/25/2015 3:42:37 PM Vivian Long, Clerk

(Id. ) The registration further stated that "[t]he color(s) orange is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the color orange as applied to railings, gates and cages of fall protection equipment. The product configuration depicted in dotted lines is not claimed as a feature of the mark and serves only to show placement of the mark on the goods." (Id. ) In addition to the registered mark, SafeRack submitted photos of equ