Classic Touch Decor, Inc. v. Michael Aram, Inc.
Plaintiff: Classic Touch Decor, Inc.
Defendant: Michael Aram, Inc.
Counter Defendant: Classic Touch Decor, Inc.
Counter Claimant: Michael Aram, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2015cv00453
Filed: January 29, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge: Nicholas G. Garaufis
Presiding Judge: Roanne L. Mann
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER granting 38 Classic Touch Decor's motion to dismiss Michael Aram's trade dress infringement claim without prejudice. As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum and Order, there is no doubt that Michael Aram's tableware pieces featuring three-dimensional, blooming orchids are the type of goods for which trade dress protection may be available. However, Michael Aram's articulation of the trade dress as it is currently stated in the Amended Counterclaim is impermissib ly vague and fails to provide proper notice to Classic Touch and to the court as to the scope of the trade dress claimed. Accordingly, Michael Aram's trade dress infringement claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In addition, the court amends the Scheduling Order and GRANTS Michael Aram leave to amend its allegations pertaining to the trade dress infringement claim; Michael Aram shall file a Second Amended Counterclaim, if any, within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 10/23/2015. (Goldstein, Ryan)
September 8, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 53 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 50 Letter MOTION for Discovery Dispute filed by Classic Touch Decor, Inc. The Court resolves the remaining issues in plaintiff's motion. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 9/8/2015. (Williams, Jennifer)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Classic Touch Decor, Inc. v. Michael Aram, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter defendant: Classic Touch Decor, Inc.
Represented By: Steven Stern
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Classic Touch Decor, Inc.
Represented By: Steven Stern
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter claimant: Michael Aram, Inc.
Represented By: Richard D. Rochford, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael Aram, Inc.
Represented By: Joseph Craig Lawlor
Represented By: Richard D. Rochford, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?