Legal Opinion
Maruzen International, Co. v. Bridgeport Merchandise, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 15, 1991No. 90 Civ. 3531 (KTD)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, District Judge:
Plaintiff Maruzen International Co., Ltd. (“Maruzen”) brings this action against, inter alia, defendants Hyman Products, Inc. (“Hyman”), Fascinations Toys Gifts Inc. (“Fascinations”), and Kay-Bee Toy Hobby Shops, Inc. (“Kay-Bee”) for violations of copyright, trademark, trade dress, unfair competition, and other rights in connection with a product known as the “Art Bank.” 1 The Art Bank was apparently created by a Japanese company, Tenyo Co., Ltd. (“Ten-yo”), that purportedly assigned its rights to Maruzen’s Japanese parent company (“Maruzen…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Top Form Mills, Inc. v. Sociedad Nationale Industria Applicazioni ViscosaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977
- Afros S.P.A. v. Krauss-Maffei Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1987
- Manchester Modes, Inc. v. Lilli Ann CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pfizer Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1993
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1995
- National Cathode Corp. v. Mexus Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1994
- Baron Philippe De Rothschild v. Paramount Distillers, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Dallas v. Roosevelt Union Free School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.