Legal Opinion

Milecrest Corp. v. United States

United States Court of International Trade

Decided September 15, 2017No. Slip Op. 17-125; Court 17-00125PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

Choe-Groves, Judge:.Milecrest Corporation (“Plaintiff’) is a company engaged in the business of importing and distributing bulk-packaged gray market batteries bearing the “DURACELL” mark, a United States trademark currently owned by Duracell U.S. Operations, Inc. (“Duracell”). See First Amended Compl., July 25, 2017, ECF No. 78. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(h) (2012) 1 seeking judicial reviéw of the decision made by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) to grant Lever-Rule protection to Duracell, thereby restricting imports of certain…

2Cases cited56 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. HoUnited States Court of International Trade · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API