Legal Opinion
Forstmann Woolen Co. v. Murray Sices Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 26, 1950No. Civ. No. 52-124PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEDINA, District Judge.
Plaintiff moves to strike certain allegations in defendant’s answer as argumentative, irresponsive, redundant, immaterial and impertinent, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12(f), 28 U.S.C.A.; to strike certain defenses and to dismiss the same as insufficient and not constituting a legal defense, pursuant to Rules 12 (b) and (f); to dismiss certain counterclaims for failure to state a claim for relief, pursuant to Rule 12(b) ; and to vacate defendant’s demand for a jury trial.
Plaintiff’s claim is for infringement of a trade-mark registered under the Act…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. Colgate & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Dioguardi v. DurningCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Pearl Brewing Co. v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1976
- Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1959
- Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, JenaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1969
- Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. JA Buchroeder & CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1966
- Coca-Cola Company v. Howard Johnson CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1974
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.