Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc. et al
| Gucci America, Inc. |
| Guess?, Inc. and Guess Italia S.r.l. |
| 1:2009cv04373 |
| May 6, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Kevin Nathaniel Fox |
| Shira A. Scheindlin |
| None |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 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
258
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER re: 256 MOTION Relief of a Judgment or Order under Rule (60A) filed by Gucci America, Inc., 255 MOTION Relief of a Judgment or Order under Rule (60A) filed by Marc Fisher Footwear LLC, 257 MOTION Relief of a Judgment o r Order under Rule (60A) filed by Guess?, Inc. Over the past three years, the parties have put in countless hours and spent untold sums of money, all in the service of fashion - what Oscar Wilde aptly called "a form of ugliness so intolerable th at we have to alter it every six months." With the instant disputes now resolved, and with Gucci's entitlement to the relief noted above, it is my hope that this ugliness will be limited to the runway and shopping floor, rather than spillin g over into the courts. The parties' Motions for Relief from a Judgment or Order under Rule 60( a) are granted to the extent that this Amended Opinion and Order addresses the concerns raised within those motions. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the following motions: Docket Nos. 255, 256, and 257. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/18/2012) (lmb)
|
|
Filing
251
OPINION AND ORDER. This is a trademark infringement case between two global fashion companies... Gucci claims that Defendants have infringed or counterfeited four of its trademarks, and one trade dress on over one thousand stock keeping units (" SKU's") in an attempt to "Gucci-fy" their product line.... CONCLUSION: Over the past three years, the parties have put in countless hours and spent untold sums of money, all in the service of fashion what Oscar Wilde aptly called a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months. With the instant disputes now resolved, and with Guccis entitlement to the relief noted herein, it is my hope that this uglines will be limited to the runway and shopping floor, rather than spilling over into the Courts. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/21/2012) (ja)
|
|
Filing
214
OPINION AND ORDER: MFFs motion to preclude testimony regarding the American Disputes is denied. MFFs motion to preclude evidence related to the European Disputes is granted pursuant to Rule 403. Guesss motion to exclude his report and any other evidence regarding "reasonable royalty" damages is denied. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/13/2012) (ft)
|
|
Filing
202
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Summary Judgment Opinion is clarified in the following respects: 1) Guess's summary judgment motion as to Gucci's claims for injunctive relief stemming from Guess's allegedly diluting use of the Square Gand Quattro G designs is denied; 2) Gucci was issued trademark registrations for the Stylized G on March 11, 1997, March 23, 1999, and January 3, 2006; and 3) Guess cannot be charged with constructive knowledge of the Stylized G design based on Guc ci's registrations thereof to the extent that Guess used the Square G design before such registrations issued. The Summary Judgment Opinion remains in effect in all other respects. The final pre-trial conference remains scheduled for March 13, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/21/2012) (ft)
|
|
Filing
196
OPINION AND ORDER re: 188 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Marc Fisher Footwear LLC, 182 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Signal Products, Inc., Guess?, Inc., The Max Leather Group/Cipriani Accessories, Inc., Swank, Inc., K&M Associates L.P., Sequel AG, Viva Optique, Inc. For the reasons discussed, Guess is entitled to summary judgment on Gucci's dilution claims relating to the Square G and Quattro G designs. With respect to all other claims, the motions are denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close these motions (Docket Nos. 182 and 188). A final pre-trial conference is scheduled for March 13,2012 at 5:30 p.m. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/14/2012) (mro) Modified on 2/14/2012 (mro).
|
|
Filing
186
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Gucci's motion for reconsideration is granted. The Mantis Survey is relevant and therefore admissible -on two narrow issues. First, it is relevant to the issue of post-sale consumer confusion allegedly caused by Gue ss Quattro G bags in those post-sale situations where the casual observer will not see permanent Guess-identifying ornamentation. Second, it its relevant to the issue of whether the test bag itself infringes Gucci's trademark and trade dress rights. Guess shall be entitled to five additional pages in its summary judgment papers to address these issues. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 12/15/2011) (ft)
|
|
Filing
176
OPINION AND ORDER re: 164 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Defendant Guess?, Inc.'s Proposed Expert Opinions, Testimony and Surveys of Dr. Myron J. Helfgott and Dr. Carol A. Scott filed by Gucci America, Inc., 163 MOTION in Limine filed by Signal Products, Inc., Guess?, Inc., The Max Leather Group/Cipriani Accessories, Inc., Swank, Inc., K&M Associates L.P., Sequel AG, Viva Optique, Inc. For the reasons given above, Gucci's motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: the Helfgott Surveys are excluded on all of the issues for which Guess offers them. The Scott Survey is admissible on the issue of laches, but, like the Helfgott Surveys, excluded on the remainder of the issues for which Guess offers it. For the rea sons given above, Guess's motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: the Mantis Survey is inadmissible on the issue of postsale confusion. The Mazis Survey is admissible on the issue of association as itrelates to dilution. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close these motions (Docket Nos. 162 and 163). A hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2011 at 4:30p.m. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/16/2011) (cd)
|
|
Filing
136
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, the Order of the Magistrate Judge is set aside and Gucci' s motion for a protective order is hereby granted. All communications between Gucci and Moss that were made for the purpose of giving legal advice are entitled to protection pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/3/2011) (jpo)
|
|
Filing
78
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 62 MOTION for Protective Order Against the Disclosure of the Privileged Communications of Plaintiff's In-House Legal Counsel Jonathan Moss. Filed by Gucci America, Inc. For all these reasons, Gucci's application to seal those portions of its motion papers that relate to Moss, and in particular, the circumstances giving rise to his termination, is denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 4/8/10) (djc)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER GRANTING AMENDMENT OF GUESS?, INC'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, Guess may file its First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/6/09) (cd)
|
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 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.
