Legal Opinion
Estee Lauder, Inc. v. Fragrance Counter, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 23, 1999No. 99 Civ. 0382(RWS)PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Estee Lauder Inc., Origins Natural Resources Inc., Clinique Laboratories, Inc., and Prescriptives, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) have moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), to strike Defendant Excite Inc.’s (“Excite”) Tenth Affirmative Defense of “trademark misuse,” and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), for a protective order precluding discovery concerning the same. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
Prior Proceedings
Plaintiffs, well-known companies in the beauty industry and holders of several trademarks…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking UnlimitedSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Schlagenhauf v. HolderSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Coach, Inc. v. Kmart CorporationsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- United States v. East River Housing Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- County Vanlines Inc. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Adidas-America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2008
- Dunn Computer Corp. v. Loudcloud, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2001
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.