Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CASTILLO, District Judge.
Plaintiff Hot Wax sues defendant Turtle Wax for false advertising under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Hot Wax alleges that Turtle Wax falsely markets and advertises certain products as waxes, when in fact the products do not contain any wax. The parties have submitted cross-motions for summary judgment.
Hot Wax contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because its experts have determined — and the defendant’s expert has admitted — that the products in question do not contain wax. In light of this admission,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Heublein, Inc. And Subsidiaries v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Dupont Dow Elastomers LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2005
- LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009
- Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010
- Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Executive Development, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.