Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided December 21, 2012No. 2011-1593Published

1DissentReyna, Circuit Judge

The issue before us is whether the district court decided the ownership of the Winnie-the-Pooh trademarks. Because I believe the district court did not decide ownership of the Pooh trademarks, and because I believe that a decision on ownership was not necessary to the district court’s decision concerning trademark infringement, I respectfully dissent.

I. Collateral Estoppel

Collateral estoppel, often called “issue preclusion,” bars relitigation in a second action of an issue litigated and decided in a prior action. Because preclusion may forever bar meritorious claims and negate significant…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Russell v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Mother's Restaurant Incorporated v. Mama's Pizza, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
  4. De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  5. Exxon Corporation v. Oxxford Clothes, Inc. And Oxxford Clothes Xx, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1997

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API