Legal Opinion
Bravo Co. v. Chum, Ltd.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided August 17, 1999No. 0:97-cv-04689PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HURLEY, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the motion of Defendant Chum Limited (“Chum”) to dismiss the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. 1 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Bravo Company (“Bravo”) is the producer and owner of a cable television service that features film and arts programming. (Compile 7-8.) Bravo’s arts cable television programming service is identified by the trade name and service mark “BRAVO” and similar related marks. (Def.’s Mem. at 2.) Bravo alleges that it is a general partnership under…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- American Dredging Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. The T. Eaton Co. Limited and John David EatonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. And Peregrine Capital Myanmar Ltd. v. Miriam Marshall SegalCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In Re Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A. Holocaust Insurance LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002