Legal Opinion
E. Gluck Corp. v. Rothenhaus
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 31, 2008No. 08 Civ. 3466(VM)PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge.
Plaintiff E. Gluck Corporation (“Gluck”) filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”), alleging that defendant Adam Rothenhaus (“Rothenhaus”): (1) infringed its NOW trademark (“NOW”) in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act (the “Lanham Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); (2) engaged in cyberpiracy by maintaining the domain name www. thenowwatch.com (the “Domain Name”) in violation of Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (“ § 1125”); and (3) engaged in unfair competition in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, § 1125(a). Among other…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- LAWRENCE STOREY, — v. CELLO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., CELLO MUSIC AND FILM SYSTEMS, INC., — HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP AND ODIN, FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of WarholCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- In Re Pennie & Edmonds LLPCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Ho Myung Moolsan Co. v. Manitou Mineral Water, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Lipin v. HuntDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Lorber v. WinstonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2014
- Hoyle v. DimondDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2009
- E. Gluck Corp. v. RothenhausDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.