Legal Opinion
Artmatic USA Cosmetics v. Maybelline Co.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided December 5, 1995No. CV-94-1799PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GLASSER, District Judge:
SUMMARY
This multi-defendant action for patent infringement is before the Court on two motions: (1) a motion by plaintiffs Artmatic USA Cosmetics and Arthur Matney (“Art-matie”) to modify the default judgment entered against them on October 18, 1994 by eliminating a declaration of patent invalidity; and (2) a motion by defendant Maybelline Co. (“Maybelline”) for summary judgment based on the collateral estoppel effect of the default judgments secured by Max Factor and Nox-ell. For the reasons below, Artmatic’s motion to modify the default judgments…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Enron Oil Corp. v. DiakuharaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Paddington Partners v. Jean-Louis Bouchard, Herbert A. Denton, Econocom Finance Nv Econocom International N v. Jeffries & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Action S.A. And Deltamar Establishment v. Marc Rich & Co., Inc. And Marc Rich, Marc RichCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2008
- Gottlieb v. KestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Guo Zhong Wu v. Qiao Lin (In re Qiao Lin)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- Jewelers Vigilance Committee, Inc. v. Vitale Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Austin v. FordDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.