RHINO LININGS USA, INC. v. HARRIMAN et al
| RHINO LININGS USA, INC. |
| MARTIN A. HARRIMAN and RHINO SALES, INC. |
| 1:2007cv01087 |
| August 24, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| David Frank Hamilton |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1121 Trademark Infringement |
| None |
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
141
ENTRY ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The major issues in this case pivot on conflicting testimony and competing inferences to be drawn from the facts. There is too much competing evidence regarding material questions of fact for any of the p arties to avoid a trial. All three parties' motions are granted in part and denied in part. Rhino's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to Harriman's counterclaim that Rhino breached the exclusivity provisions of the dealer contract in its dealings with Ziebart and AutoX while Harriman was still a dealer. Rhino's motion is denied in all other respects. Harriman's motion is granted as to liability on his counterclaim that Rhino breached the exclusivity provisions by supplying Dallman Industrial Corporation, but is denied in all other respects. AutoX's motion is granted in part with respect to Harriman's distinct claim of unfair competition. AutoX's motion is denied in all other respects. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 9/29/2009. (LBK)
|
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 Indiana Southern 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.
