Legal Opinion

Aureflam Corp. v. Pho Hoa Phat I, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided June 24, 2005No. C 05 00746 RSPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

SEEBORG, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Aureflam Corporation (“Auref-lam”) moves to dismiss counterclaims filed by Defendants Pho Hoa Phat I, Inc., Pho Hoa Phat I, Inc., and Johnny Lee (“PHP”) for failure to state a sufficient claim under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) and 9(b), or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(e). The motion is based on Aureflam’s contentions that (1) its service mark has attained incontestable status under 15 U.S.C. §…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  2. Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Howard Wool v. Tandem Computers Incorporated, Robert C. Marshall, Henry v. Morgan, and James G. TreybigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  4. Concha v. LondonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  5. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,947 Dean Walling v. Beverly Enterprises, a California CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Airwair International Ltd. v. SchultzDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2015
  2. BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021
  3. Genomma Lab Internacional, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Mprezas, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2023
  4. Graminex, L. L. C. v. AB CernelleDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API