Legal Opinion
Mead Corp. v. Stuart Hall Co., Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided May 29, 1987No. C-3-86-359PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICE, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Stay or Transfer (Doc. # 4). For the reasons that follow, the Defendant’s motion is overruled in its entirety.
On August 8, 1986, at 3:53 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), The Mead Corporation (Mead) filed the instant action against The Stuart Hall Company, Inc. (Stuart Hall) seeking a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202, that the trade dress used in connection with Mead’s proposed Cambridge line of stationery products does not infringe any trademark or trade dress rights…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Kerotest Manufacturing Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Norwood v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Viacom International, Inc. v. Melvin Simon Productions, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Border v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Border)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1990
- CERRO WIRE INC. v. Southwire Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2011