Bruce Kirby, Inc. et al v. LaserPerformance (Europe) Limited et al
| Bruce Kirby, Inc. and Bruce Kirby |
| LaserPerformance (Europe) Limited, Quarter Moon, Incorporated, Karaya (Jersey) Limited, International Sailing Federation Limited, International Laser Class Association and Farzad Rastegar |
| 3:2013cv00297 |
| March 4, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Fairfield |
| Robert N. Chatigny |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
693
RULING. For the reasons stated in the attached Ruling, the Court GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part, Dory Ventures, LLC's 660 Motion to Quash, as narrowed by the parties' 692 September 10, 2021, Joint Statement Regarding Discovery. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 10/4/2021. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing
651
ORDER RE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS. For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, the Court DENIES the defendants' motion to dismiss and for new trial (Doc. # 641 ), and the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment as explained in the attached opinion (Doc. # 610 ). The Clerk of Court shall prepare a separate judgment reflecting the following: Judgment in favor of BKI on its Lanham Act claims (Counts One and Two) against QMI, and a Lanham Act dam ages award of $2,056,736.33 against QMI; Judgment in favor of Kirby against QMI and LPE for misappropriation of Kirby's name (Count Three), with a nominal damages award of $1 against QMI and a compensatory damages award of $2, 520,578.81 against LPE; An award of attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act in favor of BKI against QMI in the amount of $734,528.30; and An award of punitive damages on Kirby's misappropriation claim in the amount of $804,17 9.44 against both QMI and LPE, who shall be jointly and severally liable for the full amount. Upon payment from the defendants of a total amount of $734,528.30 to Kirby and/or BKI for attorneys' fees (including all amounts paid by QMI to BK I for Lanham Act attorneys' fees), defendants shall not owe any additional sum to either Kirby or BKI for the attorneys' fees component of the punitive damages award.Upon separate entry of judgment, the Clerk of Court shall close th is case. In light of the mathematical complexity of the award calculations in this case, if any party believes that this ruling is based upon a clear computational error, they are encouraged to file a timely motion for reconsideration or motion to re-open the judgment rather than litigating a claimed error of math in the first instance on appeal. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/1/2021. (DeBot, B.)
|
|
Filing
563
ORDER RE REMAINING PENDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE. For the reasons explained in the accompanying ruling, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part and DEFERS in part plaintiffs' motions in limine No. 3, No. 4 (first), No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7 (Doc. # 525 ) and defendants' motion in limine (Doc. # 520 ), as set forth in the attached ruling. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 02/05/2020. (Mahler-Haug, A)
|
|
Filing
558
ORDER RE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTIONS IN LIMINE RELATED TO LATE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES. For the reasons stated in the accompanying ruling, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part and DEFERS in part the Kirby plaintiffs' motion for sanctions (Doc. #]537]) and motions in limine No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 (second) (Doc. # 525 ), as set forth in therein. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 01/31/2020. (Mahler-Haug, A)
|
|
Filing
533
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER. In accordance with the attached opinion, the Court DENIES the motion for entry of order (Doc. # 505 ) without prejudice to its renewal at the close of trial and with respect to the Court's entry of final judgment. The motion to strike (Doc. # 511 ) is DENIED as moot. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/17/2020. (Al-Jarani, Y.)
|
|
Filing
494
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying ruling, Global Sailing's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. # 415 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The m otion is GRANTED as to Global Sailing's claim that Quarter Moon improperly challenged the design rights to the Laser after July 13, 2011; is GRANTED as to Global Sailing's claim that LaserPerformance improperly challenged the design rights to the Laser after July 13, 2015; is GRANTED as to Global Sailing's claim that LaserPerformance failed to attempt negotiate a sale of the Laser plugs, moulds, and tooling after July 13, 2015; and is DENIED in all other respects. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/9/2019. (Rubin, N.)
|
|
Filing
366
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS. For the reasons stated in the attached order, I will grant without prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. # 341 ) Claims III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII as to all defendants. If GSL wishes to file a carefully drafted second amended complaint with respect to its Lanham Act or CUTPA claims, it may do so by August 27, 2018. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 7/27/2018. (Zuckier, Chana)
|
|
Filing
312
RULING ON MOTIONS TO AMEND AND FOR CLARIFICATION. For the reasons explained in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders. Counterclaim defendant GSL's motion for leave to amend its answer to add counterclaims (Doc. # 298 ) is DE NIED. Plaintiffs' motion for clarification (Doc. # 299 ) is GRANTED, and therefore I will consider anew those arguments advanced by defendants in their summary judgment briefing as to Counts I through IV. In light of the passage of time, the par ties shall submit by July 12, 2017, any supplemental authorities or any supplemental memoranda not to exceed 10 double-spaced pages with respect to the arguments previously made for and against the dismissal of Counts I through IV of the amended comp laint. All other scheduling orders and obligations with respect to the filing of a Joint Trial Memorandum and trial are stayed, in contemplation of a renewed trial scheduling order following the Court's issuance of a ruling with respect to defendants' summary judgment motion as to Counts I through IV. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/21/2017. (Levenson, C.)
|
|
Filing
283
ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: For the reasons in the attached ruling, the motion for summary judgment by LPE and QMI (Doc. # 186 ) and the motion for summary judgment by ILCA (Doc. # 183 ) are GRANTED in light of my conclusion that plaintiff s Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc., have no standing to maintain their claims. The motion to dismiss by ILCA (Doc. # 174 ) is DENIED as moot in light of the granting of its motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment by counterclaim defendants Bruce Kirby and Bruce Kirby, Inc. (Doc. # 180 ) as to several of the counterclaims asserted by counterclaim plaintiffs LPE and QMI is GRANTED in part (as to Counterclaims III and IV) and DENIED in part (as to Counterclaims V through IX). The motion for summary judgment by counterclaim defendant GSL (Doc. # 184 ) against LPE and QMI is GRANTED in part (as to the claim of overpaid royalties for the Laser Radial and Laser 4.7) and DENIED in part (as to the claim of overpaid royalties for packaging). It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/12/16. (Gorsuch, A)
|
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
