Legal Opinion
Horn's, Inc. v. Sanofi Beaute, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 9, 1997No. 95 Civil 2994 (RJW)PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROBERT J. WARD, District Judge.
Defendants Sanofi Beaute, Inc. and Nina Ricci, Inc. move pursuant to Rule 56, Fed. R.Civ.P., for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Horn’s Inc. (“Horn’s”), a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in New York City, commenced this action against Sanofi Beaute, Inc. and Nina Ricci, Inc., alleging trademark infringement in violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Doe Lang, Petitioner/defendant-Appellant v. Retirement Living Publishing Co., Inc., Respondent/plaintiff-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Paco Sport, Ltd. v. Paco Rabanne ParfumsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Globalaw Ltd. v. Carmon & Carmon Law OfficeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- U-Neek, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- Popular Bank of Fla. v. BANCO POPULAR PUERTO RICODistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1998
- Scholastic, Inc. v. StoufferDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.