United States Polo Association, Inc. et al v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff: United States Polo Association, Inc. and USPA Properties, Inc.
Defendant: PRL USA Holdings, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2009cv09476
Filed: November 13, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Unassigned
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 dj Declaratory Judgment
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 21, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 151 OPINION. The USPA's motion for judgment as a matter of law, treated as a motion for summary judgment, is denied pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(1). It is so ordered. re: 140 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by JRA Trademark Company, Ltd., USPA Properties, Inc., United States Polo Association, Inc. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/21/2016) (rjm)
March 6, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 125 OPINION re: 105 MOTION to Intervene filed by JRA Trademark Company, Ltd., 98 MOTION for Sanctions and Contempt filed by PRL USA Holdings, Inc. Based upon the facts and conclusions set forth above, the motion of JRA to intervene and the mot ion of PRL to hold USPA in contempt for violation of the Injunction are granted. PRL is granted any profits arising out of the sales of the USPA Parties' eyewear bearing the Double Horsemen Mark sixty days after the entry of this Order. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/5/2013) (cd)
March 5, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 94 OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, the PRL Parties' motions for attorneys' fees are denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/1/2012) (pl)
May 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 80 OPINION: The PRL Parties have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Upon all the proceedings and herein and the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below, the USPA Parties' request for a declaratory judgment is denied, the PRL Parties' request for a permanent injunction is granted. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the claims of the United States Polo Association Parties are dismissed and the PRL Parties are granted injunctive relief. Submit judgment on notice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/13/2011) (ae)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: United States Polo Association, Inc. et al v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: United States Polo Association, Inc.
Represented By: George Alexander Stamboulidis
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: USPA Properties, Inc.
Represented By: George Alexander Stamboulidis
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: PRL USA Holdings, Inc.
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?