Legal Opinion
Construction Technology v. Lockformer Co., Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 10, 1989No. 88 Civ. 0742 (MBM)PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MUKASEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Construction Technology, Inc. (“CTI”) filed this action against five answering defendants — Lockformer Company, Inc., Met-Coil Systems Corp., Mechanical Data, Inc., Estimation, Inc., and Lion International Co. d/b/a Orange Systems (“Orange Systems”). 1 The amended 2 com plaint alleges eight claims for relief, denominated “counts,” against them. Count I is unfair competition and false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Count II is for deceptive practices and false advertising under New York General Business…
2Cases cited76 opinions
- Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. TomanioSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Conopco, Inc., D/B/A Van Den Bergh Foods Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Campbell Soup Company, Defendants-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Securitron Magnalock Corp. v. SchnabolkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Gordon & Breach Science Publishers S.A. v. American Institute of PhysicsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1994
- Katzman v. Victoria's Secret CatalogueDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Dornberger v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.