Legal Opinion
Black & Decker Corp. v. Dunsford
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 6, 1996No. 95 Civ. 1303 (SAS)PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Black & Decker Corporation and Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. (“Black & Decker” or “plaintiff’) have moved for summary judgment on Counts I, II and III of their
Complaint 1 and Counts I, III and IV of Defendants’ Counterclaim. 2 Black & Decker seeks summary judgment on the ground that the name “Snakelight” as used by Defendants Michael Dunsford (“Dunsford”) and M.D. Enterprises, Inc. (“M.D.”) is not pro-tectible as a matter of law. Because Defendants’ mark is a descriptive mark without secondary meaning, the motion is granted.
I. Factual…
2Cases cited33 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
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- LVL XIII Brands, Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2016
- BigStar Entertainment, Inc. v. Next Big Star, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. UngerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Kaplan, Inc. v. YunDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Globalaw Ltd. v. Carmon & Carmon Law OfficeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.