Blumenthal Distributing, Inc. v. Executive Chair, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Blumenthal Distributing, Inc. v. Executive Chair, Inc.

Blumenthal Distributing, Inc. v. Executive Chair, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Blumenthal Distributing, Inc.
Defendant:	Executive Chair, Inc.
Case Number:	1:2010cv01280
Filed:	March 22, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Carol B. Amon
Presiding Judge:	Steven M. Gold
Nature of Suit:	Patent
Cause of Action:	15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
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
January 13, 2012	Filing 83 ORDER denying 81 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, the motion is denied. Ordered by Chief Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on 1/13/2012. (Keefe, Reed)
March 3, 2011	Filing 62 Order re: 23, 50, 55. The Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court insofar as it recommends issuing a preliminary injunction based on the plaintiffs patent claims, the Court need not consider the merits of either plaintiffs Lanham Act or New York unfair completion claims. Accordingly, Executive Chair, its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from importing, distributing, offering for sale or selling any chair which embodies the design contained in the 488 patent. So ordered by Judge Carol B. Amon on 3/3/2011. (Amon, Carol)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 13, 2012

Filing 83 ORDER denying 81 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, the motion is denied. Ordered by Chief Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on 1/13/2012. (Keefe, Reed)

March 3, 2011

Filing 62 Order re: 23, 50, 55. The Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court insofar as it recommends issuing a preliminary injunction based on the plaintiffs patent claims, the Court need not consider the merits of either plaintiffs Lanham Act or New York unfair completion claims. Accordingly, Executive Chair, its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from importing, distributing, offering for sale or selling any chair which embodies the design contained in the 488 patent. So ordered by Judge Carol B. Amon on 3/3/2011. (Amon, Carol)

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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Blumenthal Distributing, Inc. v. Executive Chair, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Blumenthal Distributing, Inc.
Represented By:	Edward R. Schwartz
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: Executive Chair, 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?