Legal Opinion
SB Designs v. Reebok International, Ltd.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided September 30, 2004No. 03 C 3672PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
In their second amended complaint, SB Designs and its co-owners, Gary Sidney and Maurice Sidney, assert violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125, against Reebok (Count I) and Cros-sova Productions 1 (Count III), and violations of the “Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act,” 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq., 2 , against Reebok (Count II), arising from defendants’ alleged infringement of plaintiffs’ trademark. Defendant Reebok moved separately to dismiss the instant complaint, and the court converted the motion to a motion for…
2Cases cited15 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
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Lockheed Martin Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Network Solutions, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Desmond v. Chicago Boxed Beef Distributors, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2013
- Monotype Imaging, Inc. v. Bitstream, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2005
- Stayart v. YAHOO! INC.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2009
- Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware Home Products, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.