This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The City of Buffalo, New York Tuesday filed a complaint against major gun manufacturers for fueling gun violence through their business practices. The complaint identifies the gun manufacturers as “ghost gun defendants.” The case is in the Supreme Court for the State of New York in Erie County.
Plaintiff had argued that using the patented methods in the design process, which guides the subsequent manufacturing process, is sufficient to state a claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 12(b)(6), a party may bring a motion to dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim.
In terms the trademark/trade dress infringement causes of action that Versace set out in its complaint, Fashion Nova’s counsel claimed that these should similarly be barred for a number of different reasons.
Insurers for a glass manufacturer cannot pursue most of their claims against two contractors over a 2017 factory explosion, a Michigan federal court ruled, saying waiver of subrogation clauses in the underlying service contracts bar all causes of action except those arising from gross negligence.
VIP Products firmly rejected the use of the Jack Daniel’s trademarks by a manufacturer selling a line of dog toys that mock various beverage manufacturers. Share Thursday’s decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. The one at issue here copies numerous elements of the famous Jack Daniel’s bottle. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey.”
The Court held that local consumer legislation – in the form of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) – applies to foreign manufacturers. The decision is of particular interest to New Zealand consumers and manufacturers of goods that are supplied in New Zealand, as well as traders advertising their products to New Zealanders.
In other words, “Consumers are likely to be misled into believing that [her] products are manufactured by, licensed by, sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise associated with Gucci.” million counterfeit products seized off-line, and 45,000 websites, including social media, disabled” in 2020, alone.
In the complaint that it filed in a federal court in California on Monday, Nike claims that Customs By Ilene, Inc., ” Corona, California-based Drip Creationz does not stop there, though, per Nike. .”
2017) refocused attention on a required nexus between the the defendant’s contacts with the forum state and the cause of action. The decision suggested to many that defendant’s connections should have a causal-link with the cause of action.
In terms of what such hypothetical legal issues look like, they run the gamut – from potential trademark infringement and dilution causes of action to questions about the role of the right of publicity. along with Manufacture de Haute Horlogerie SA, which owns the manufacturing facilities for the Genta brand.
NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION. (a) What is interesting is that the Chapter includes a ban on any constitutional, contractual, or regulatory lawsuit for losses under this ban. ” Moreover, state proprietary activities may be, and often are, burdened with the same restrictions imposed on private market participants.
Among other things, the court shot down Amazon’s argument that Maglula should not be permitted to make sweeping claims of infringement about “thousands of disparate products from various third-party vendors and manufacturers” without showing on a “product-by-product basis what marks are at issue or how the alleged infringement occurred.”
Mint then uses the mutilated coins to manufacture new coinage. However, it ultimately refused to pay, claiming that testing revealed “a very high percentage of coins submitted were actually made by a manufacturer other than the United States Mint” – i.e. a substantial percentage of the coins were counterfeit.
Primarily, WGACA argues that Chanel has no evidence that the 12 allegedly counterfeit bags that it sold – which Chanel says have “serial numbers purportedly stolen from a Chanel factory” – were not manufactured by a Chanel factory. in 2012.”
Tube-Mac, is the plaintiff in this case and is looking to manufacture its own version of the container systems. 256. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, a civil action arising under an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this section may not be commenced later than 4 years after the cause of action accrues.
A partially divided Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal, published opinion reversed the dismissal on demurrer of a mother’s action for the distress she suffered when speaking on the phone with her daughter as the daughter was involved in a car crash allegedly caused by the defendants’ negligence.
filed suit against Costco in a New York federal court , accusing the Issaquah, Washington-headquartered retail chain of trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and unfair business practices, among other causes of action, and seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages. and adidas America, Inc.
Yekini and I stated in our blog post , that Justice Abiru’s “dissenting opinion in Niger Aluminium Manufacturing Co. Ltd v Union Bank (2015) LPELR-26010(CA) 32-36 highlights his commitment to addressing conflict of laws situations even when the majority view falls short.”
filed suit against Costco in a New York federal court , accusing the Issaquah, Washington-headquartered retail chain of trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and unfair business practices, among other causes of action, and seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages.
In a declaratory judgment action filed in October 2020 , WWW and Bernstein asked a New York federal court to formally declare that they did not run afoul of the indie intimates brand’s rights by using a lookalike “Silhouettes Design.” Specifically, Bernstein and co.
A plastic surgery group filed a cross-complaint against the petitioner alleging causes of action arising from the purchase of a product the petitioner manufactured. Division Three will now address in a written opinion the merits of the writ petition. ” Here are the petition for review , answer , and reply.
In a published opinion , the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal held that a previously owned vehicle with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty and sold by a retailer unaffiliated with the manufacturer is not a “new motor vehicle” under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
Mrs. Ferlito had constructed a lamb costume for her husband by gluing cotton batting manufactured by defendant Johnson & Johnson Products (“JJP”) to a suit of long underwear. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. Ferlito) and her little lamb (Mr.
Mrs. Ferlito had constructed a lamb costume for her husband by gluing cotton batting manufactured by defendant Johnson & Johnson Products (“JJP”) to a suit of long underwear. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. Ferlito) and her little lamb (Mr.
Volkswagen has asked the court to consider whether the Clean Air Act prevents state and local governments from regulating car manufacturers’ post-sale, nationwide updates to vehicle emissions systems. The solicitor general’s office has now filed its brief.
But the companies that manufacture the product told the justices on Tuesday that because Horn’s injuries were personal, rather than harm to his business or property, they did not fall under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Horn’s economic losses, she argued, are the “damages he sustain[ed]” because of that injury.
Faced with a public health crisis caused by the opioid epidemic, BC enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act in 2018. This legislation creates a statutory cause of action against the manufacturers, distributors and consultations of opioid drugs for causing or contributing to opioid-related disease, injury or illness.
Mrs. Ferlito had constructed a lamb costume for her husband by gluing cotton batting manufactured by defendant Johnson & Johnson Products (“JJP”) to a suit of long underwear. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. Ferlito) and her little lamb (Mr.
Manufacturers and sellers of ghost gun kits and parts went to court to challenge the rule, arguing that its application to ghost guns was inconsistent with federal firearms laws. On June 30, O’Connor vacated the rule nationwide. Oral argument in the 5th Circuit is scheduled for Sept.
However, these lockets were not made for this purchase and this is not likely a case for foreseeable misuse against the manufacturer. There is also the possibility of a products claim. For the full story, click here. ———————————————————–. 155 Ohio App. 3d 553 (2003).
The fossil companies argue that Baltimore’s claims arise under federal law and also that the action was removable pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act because it has a connection with the companies’ activities on the outer continental shelf. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. , 19-1644 (4th Cir.).
Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County , 20-994 , involves whether the Clean Air Act preempts state and local governments from regulating car manufacturers’ post-sale, nationwide updates to vehicle emissions systems. The district court dismissed the claims against Egbert, noting that causes of action under Bivens v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content