Associated Mills, Inc. v. Rush-Hampton Industries, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SHADUR, District Judge.
Associated Mills, Inc. (“Associated Mills”) has filed a multi-count Complaint against Rush-Hampton Industries, Inc. (“Rush-Hampton”):
1. Count I is brought under the Lanham Act, charging infringement of Associated Mills’ federally-registered “Pollenex” trademarks.
2. Count II asserts the federal version of commonlaw unfair competition under Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
3. Count III (asserting both diversity of citizenship and pendent jurisdiction) charges unfair competition and deceptive trade practices.
Rush-Hampton has both answered…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Von Holdt v. Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1995
- Medi USA, L.P. v. Jobst Institute, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1992
- Bianco v. Texas Instruments, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1985
- Espino v. Top Draw Freight System, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1989
- Letter-Rite, Inc. v. Computer Talk, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1985
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.