Cases

Case: 21-1969 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, CARMEL LABORATORIES, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. L’ORÉAL S.A., L’ORÉAL USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2021-1969 __________________

Case: 21-1969 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, CARMEL LABORATORIES, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. L’ORÉAL S.A., L’ORÉAL USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2021-1969 __________________

24-3296-cv (L) Sandra Yousefzadeh, et al., Newton's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2025 (Argued: March 4, 2026 Decided: July 30, 2026) Docket Nos. 24-3296 (L), 25-119 (CON) SANDRA YOUSE

OPINION & ORDER NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Michael Goldemberg, Annie Le, and Howard Petlack (“Named Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”) each bring consumer protection claims against Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (“Johnson & Johnson”) in this proposed class action under the laws of their home states: New York, California, and Florida, respectively. Pur

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NELSON S. ROMÁN, District Judge. Plaintiff Michael Goldemberg (“Plaintiff’) commenced the instant action against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (“Defendant”) seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of New York state statutory and common law. In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts three causes of action against Defendant: deceptive acts

19-2474-cv Critcher, et al v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2019 No. 19-2474-cv MARY TULLIE CRITCHER, TWOANA CLARK-SHEPPARD, VICTORIA MARYNOVSKY, PATRICIA BELBOT, JESSICA PETRIE, LINDA FEIGES, SARAH MCQUEARY, GEORGETTE C. FOURNIER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF

OPINION WOLFSON, District Judge: Presently before the Court is a motion by Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (“J & J” or “Defendant”) to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and to dismiss certain allegations pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. The instant motion arises out of an Amended Complaint filed

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-2980 _____________ IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND LIABILITY LITIGATION Mona Estrada, Appellant _____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Di

SMITH, Chief Judge. The question presented in this appeal from a dismissal of a class action is both narrow and novel: Has a plaintiff-who has entirely consumed a product that has functioned for her as expected-suffered an economic injury solely because she now sincerely wishes that she had not purchased that product? We hold that such a plaintiff has not suffered an economic injury

174 F.Supp.2d 417 (2001) PBM PRODUCTS, INC. Plaintiff. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY Defendant. No. 3:01CV199. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. October 25, 2001. *418 Paul Geoffrey Gill, Office of the Public Defender, Richmond, VA, Charles Michael Sims, Robert Francis Redmond, Jr., LeClair Ryan, Ric

WOOD, Chief Judge. This case is the story of two roads, which, unlike those in the Robert Frost poem, converged in a lawsuit. See Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken, in Mountain Interval 9 (1916). Almost thirty-five years ago, Sandy Maine came out of the backwoods and entered the business of natural insect repellants. She marketed and distributed her products u

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge In this trademark lawsuit, two fashion companies go toe-to-toe over the right to affix a metal plate to the toe of “luxury” men’s sneakers. Plaintiff LVL XIII Brands, Inc. (“LVL XIII,” pronounced “Level 13”) is a New York start-up company that manufactures, markets, and sells men’s luxury athletic footwear. LVL XIII brings this action against defendan

*1061ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ • MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION MARGARET M. MORROW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On January 17, 2014, Ben Z. Halberstam filed this putative class action on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated Californians against NJOY, Inc., and -Sottera, Inc. (collectively, “NJOY”).1

*1134OPINION AND ORDER THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, District Judge. The Plaintiffs, Simpson Performance Products, Inc., and SFI Foundation, sued the Defendants, Robert C. Wagoner and Derek Randall Cathcart in the Western District of North Carolina for trademark infringement, unfair competition, unfair and deceptive trade practices, patent infringement,

THIS OPINION With ref IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Hearing: Mailed: 8/2/11 3/20/12 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ______ L’Oreal S.A. and L’Oreal USA, Inc.

655 F.Supp.2d 1365 (2009) In re CHILDREN'S PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. MDL No. 2091. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. October 7, 2009. Before ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. Acting Chairman, JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman[*], KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR. and FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., Judges of the Panel.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION REQUESTING JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. Nos. 16 and 18) PONSOR, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This multi-district litigation consists of two consolidated class action complaints. In the first (“Kennedy complaint”), four plaintiffs are suing Defendant

602 F.Supp. 1071 (1985) REVLON, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. CARSON PRODUCTS CO., a Georgia corporation, Defendant. No. 82 Civ. 4326 (IBC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 30, 1985. As Amended March 21, 1985. *1072 *1073

This Opinion is a Precedent of the TTAB Hearing: August 22, 2013 Mailed: July 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ Harry Winston, Inc. and

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, we review the district court’s award of damages for the infringement of a federally registered trademark. *1342We reversed the district court’s first award. Sands, Taylor & Wood v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947 (7th Cir.1992) (“Sands I"), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1879, 123 L.Ed.2d 497 (1993). The