Legal Opinion
Ingrid & Isabel, LLC v. Baby Be Mine, LLC
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 1, 2014No. Case No. 13-cv-01806-JCSPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 92, 98
JOSEPH C. SPERO, United States ' Magistrate Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff Ingrid & Isabel, LLC (“I & I,” “Plaintiff’) initiated this action against Defendants Baby Be Mine Maternity, LLC (“BBM”) and BBM’s sole members and co-founders, Helen Tekce (“Tekce”) and Isabelle Gartner (“Gartner”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges multiple counts of breach of contract, one count of violation of the Lanham Act, and two California statutory and common counts of unfair competition. Defendants subsequently alleged counterclaims…
2Cases cited41 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
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Amf Incorporated, a Corporation v. Sleekcraft Boats, a Sole Proprietorship, and Bruce E. Nescher, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Smartling, Inc. v. Skawa Innovation Ltd.District Court, District of Columbia · 2019
- Alvantor Industry Co. LTD. v. Shenzhen Shi Ou Wei Te Shang Mao You Xian Gong SiDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2021
- BAMBI BABY.COM CORP. v. MADONNA VENTURES, INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2019
- Boost Beauty, LLC v. Woo Signatures, LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2022
- Fortinet, Inc. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2021
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.