Legal Opinion
Matrix Motor Co. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
District Court, C.D. California
Decided June 30, 2003No. CV 03-0601 CJC(JTLX)PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
CARNEY, District Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 29, 2002, Matrix Motor Co., Inc. (“MMC”) filed this action against defendants Toyota Jidoshi [sic] Kabushiki Kaisha i/a Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (“Toyota”), alleging (1) false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act; (2) unfair competition at common law and in violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code; (3) infringement of common law…
2Cases cited34 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
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Amf Incorporated, a Corporation v. Sleekcraft Boats, a Sole Proprietorship, and Bruce E. Nescher, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Cytosport, Inc. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2009
- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Moose Creek, Inc. Juno of California, L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Stonefire Grill, Inc. v. FGF Brands, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2013
- Moose Creek, Inc. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2004
- Bell v. Harley Davidson Motor Co.District Court, S.D. California · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.