Главное Свежее Вакансии   Проекты
222 0 В избр. Сохранено
Авторизуйтесь
Вход с паролем

The parties agreed to a consent judgment

The parties agreed to a consent judgment

Procedural Posture

The parties agreed to a consent judgment and entry of a permanent injunction in plaintiff’s action for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 USCS § 1125 (a) and California’s unfair competition statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

Overview

Civil litigation lawyers Orange County CA represent plaintiffs and defendants in civil lawsuits. They manage all phases of the litigation from the investigation, pleadings, pre-trial, trial, settlement, and appeal processes. Plaintiff manufactured cookies, crackers and other food products in Mexico under its famous trademarks for distribution and sale in Mexico and other countries, including the United States. Defendants purchased Mexican products from plaintiff and imported the unauthorized products into the United States without plaintiff’s consent and marketed them in the United States. Plaintiff sued defendants alleging that defendants infringed its trademark and engaged in unfair competition. The parties entered into a consent judgment and agreed entry of permanent injunction. The court held that the sale of the plaintiff’s product violated the Lanham Act, 15 USCS §§ 1114 (1) (a), 1125 (a) (1988), and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., As well as California’s Anti-Dilution Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14330. Thus,

Outcome

Plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief and defendants were permanently enjoined from importing, marketing, or selling in the United States, products bearing plaintiff’s marks that were not manufactured for sale in the United States.

Overview

Borrowers’ claims that a bank national association breached the implied covenant of good faith because it did not select a new cost of funds index to apply to loan contracts the borrowers concluded with a federal savings bank the association acquired, and that the association violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 because of the breach, were not preempted by the Home Owners’ Loan Act («HOLA»). However, the borrowers’ claims that the association committed fraud and misrepresentation and violated SD Codified Laws § 37-24-6 (1) were preempted by the HOLA.

Outcome

The court denied the association’s motion to dismiss the borrowers’ claims that the association breached the implied covenant of good faith in their contracts by not selecting a new index, violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 because of the breach, and for declaratory relief. However, it dismissed the borrowers’ remaining claims with prejudice as preempted or for failure to state a claim.

0
В избр. Сохранено
Авторизуйтесь
Вход с паролем