Legal Opinion
Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Decided October 29, 1991No. Civ. A. 91-1720PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND REASONS
MENTZ, District Judge.
Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7), Fed.R.Civ.P., filed by the defendants, L.A. Gear, Inc. (“L.A. Gear”) and Hyde Athletic Industries, Inc. (“Hyde”). After reviewing the motions, memoranda of counsel, the record, and the law, the Court denies both motions.
Hyde’s original motion incorporates the motion and memoranda filed by L.A. Gear; accordingly, the Court shall analyze these motions to dismiss together. The defendants raise several challenges to the plaintiff’s standing to bring this suit.
The defendants…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & MacHine WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Arachnid, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Merit Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Beghin-Say International Inc. v. Ole-Bendt RasmussenCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Afros S.P.A. v. Krauss-Maffei Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1987
- Switzer Brothers, Inc. v. James P. Byrne, D.B.A. Byrne Wallpaper & Paint StoreCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1957
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1995
- IndyMac Bank v. MiguelHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2008
- Valmet Paper MacHinery, Inc. v. Beloit Corp.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1994