Crosby Legacy Company, LLC v. TechnipFMC plc

Justia Dockets & Filings First Circuit Massachusetts District Court Crosby Legacy Company, LLC v. TechnipFMC plc

Crosby Legacy Company, LLC v. TechnipFMC plc

Plaintiff:	Crosby Legacy Company, LLC
Defendant:	TechnipFMC plc
Case Number:	1:2018cv10814
Filed:	April 26, 2018
Court:	U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office:	Boston Office
County:	Suffolk
Presiding Judge:	Mark L. Wolf
Nature of Suit:	Trademark
Cause of Action:	15 U.S.C. § 1114
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
March 5, 2025	Filing 223 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, - after consideration of the objections thereto (Docket Nos. 221 and 222 ), the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge, Jennifer C. Boal (Doc ket No. 219 ) is accepted and adopted with the exception that, with respect to Count II, this Court accepts and adopts the magistrate judge's alternative recommendation that the motions of both parties for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 199 , [ 207]) are DENIED;- summary judgment exhibits 2, 6, 8-10, 13, 19, 21, 32, 35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 52, 54-56, 58-63, 65, 66, 71, 75, 77, 83-85, 87-92, 94, 96-98, 131, 133-42, 144-52, 154-60, 162-66, 169, 172, 178, 181, 190, 197, 198, 205, 206, 208-18, 220, 222-26, 230-36, 238, 242, 255 and 256 shall be unsealed;- the parties shall submit redacted versions of summary judgment exhibits 104 and 201 for for public filing on or before Friday, March 28, 2025. So Ordered. (NMC)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 5, 2025

Filing 223 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, - after consideration of the objections thereto (Docket Nos. 221 and 222 ), the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge, Jennifer C. Boal (Doc ket No. 219 ) is accepted and adopted with the exception that, with respect to Count II, this Court accepts and adopts the magistrate judge's alternative recommendation that the motions of both parties for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 199 , [ 207]) are DENIED;- summary judgment exhibits 2, 6, 8-10, 13, 19, 21, 32, 35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 52, 54-56, 58-63, 65, 66, 71, 75, 77, 83-85, 87-92, 94, 96-98, 131, 133-42, 144-52, 154-60, 162-66, 169, 172, 178, 181, 190, 197, 198, 205, 206, 208-18, 220, 222-26, 230-36, 238, 242, 255 and 256 shall be unsealed;- the parties shall submit redacted versions of summary judgment exhibits 104 and 201 for for public filing on or before Friday, March 28, 2025. So Ordered. (NMC)

Access additional case information on PACER

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

Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Crosby Legacy Company, LLC v. TechnipFMC plc
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Crosby Legacy Company, LLC
Represented By:	Matthew G. Lindenbaum
Represented By:	Michael E. Steinberg
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: TechnipFMC plc
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?