Legal Opinion

Dorr-Oliver Inc. v. Fluid Quip, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided June 5, 1997No. 93 C 842PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GETTLEMAN, District Judge.

Defendants seek attorneys’ fees as the prevailing parties in this trademark/unfair competition litigation pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (“ § 35(a)”), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/10a(e) (the “CFA”). The court should exercise its discretion to award such fees, defendants argue, because this is an “exceptional ease” that was filed and prosecuted by plaintiff for improper purposes and without any foundation in the law or the facts. Plaintiff, which has…

2Cases cited12 opinions

Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
Dorr-Oliver, Incorporated v. Fluid-Quip, Incorporated and Andrew FrankoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
Noxell Corp. v. Firehouse No. 1 Bar-B-Que RestaurantCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985
Burger King Corporation v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation v. Burger King CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994
Nupulse, Inc. v. The Schlueter Company, Bradley Losching, and Bernard A. LoschingCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988

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

3Cited by1 opinion

Gillette Co. v. Norelco Consumer Products Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1999