James R Glidewell Dental Ceramics Inc v. Keating Dental Arts Inc

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District James R Glidewell Dental Ceramics Inc v. Keating Dental Arts Inc

James R Glidewell Dental Ceramics Inc v. Keating Dental Arts Inc

Plaintiff:	James R Glidewell Dental Ceramics Inc
Defendant:	Keating Dental Arts Inc
Case Number:	8:2011cv01309
Filed:	August 30, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	David O. Carter
Presiding Judge:	Arthur Nakazato
Nature of Suit:	Trademark

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
February 21, 2013	Filing 256 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ON PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS AND CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to No Infringement (Dkt. 84) is GRANTED; (2) Defendant's Motion for S ummary Judgment Canceling Plaintiff's Registration (Dkt. 83) is DENIED; (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Trademark Misuse, Unfair Competition, Unclean Hands, Fair Use, and Estoppel (Dkt. 79) is GRANTED IN PART and DENI ED IN PART; (4) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Trademark Infringement (Dkt. 81) is DENIED; (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant's Invalidity Defense and Counterclaim (Dkt. 82) is GRANTED. (See document for further details.) Accordingly, because this Order has resolved all issues set for trial, the trial on this matter is hereby REMOVED from the Court's calendar and a Judgment on the matter will be issued. (rla)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 21, 2013

Filing 256 ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ON PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS AND CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to No Infringement (Dkt. 84) is GRANTED; (2) Defendant's Motion for S ummary Judgment Canceling Plaintiff's Registration (Dkt. 83) is DENIED; (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Trademark Misuse, Unfair Competition, Unclean Hands, Fair Use, and Estoppel (Dkt. 79) is GRANTED IN PART and DENI ED IN PART; (4) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Trademark Infringement (Dkt. 81) is DENIED; (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant's Invalidity Defense and Counterclaim (Dkt. 82) is GRANTED. (See document for further details.) Accordingly, because this Order has resolved all issues set for trial, the trial on this matter is hereby REMOVED from the Court's calendar and a Judgment on the matter will be issued. (rla)

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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: James R Glidewell Dental Ceramics Inc v. Keating Dental Arts Inc
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Keating Dental Arts 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 ]
Plaintiff: James R Glidewell Dental Ceramics Inc
Represented By:	Leonard Tachner
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?