§Why CasetextPricing

Soilworks LLC v Midwest Industrial Supply Inc

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for for Order to Include "Synthetic Organic Dust Control" as part of "Midwest's Marks"

12 Cited authorities

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership

    507 U.S. 380 (1993)   Cited 7,711 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys

  2. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 1,955 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

  3. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.

    975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 6,189 times
    Holding the "good cause" standard of Rule 16 controls after a scheduling order establishes the pleading timetable

  4. Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc.

    465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,694 times
    Holding although leave to amend should be freely given, courts need not grant leave where amendment would be futile

  5. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.

    232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 2,035 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with a new theory of liability at summary judgment after the close of discovery would prejudice the defendants

  6. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.

    174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,076 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"

  7. Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co.

    866 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 1,320 times
    Holding that the ninety-day notice requirement is jurisdictional

  8. Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co

    28 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that district court abused its discretion by granting Rule 4 extension, when attorney had mistakenly believed that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) the Rule 4 period began three days after the judgment was mailed, because the rules were "nonambiguous"

  9. Ultimate Creations, Inc. v. THQ Inc.

    No. CV-05-1134-PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Jan. 24, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    No. CV-05-1134-PHX-SMM. January 24, 2008 ORDER STEPHEN McNAMEE, Chief District Judge Pending before the Court is Defendant THQ Inc.'s (Defendant or THQ) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 56). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for determination. BACKGROUND The Players This case involves a dispute over Defendant's alleged infringing use of Plaintiff's intellectual property rights associated with the Warrior wrestling persona in Defendant's video games. Warrior is the President of Plaintiff Ultimate

  10. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 90,505 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  11. Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 16   Cited 33,703 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

  12. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,274 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"