Omega SA et al v. 375 Canal, LLC et al
| Omega SA and Swatch SA |
| 375 Canal, LLC, John Does 1-50 and XYZ Companies 1-50 |
| 1:2012cv06979 |
| September 14, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of U.S. |
| Paul A. Crotty |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 |
| 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
330
OPINION & ORDER re: 311 MOTION for Permanent Injunction (Omega SA's Post-Trial Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Permanent Injunctive Relief). filed by Omega SA, 313 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Prejudgment Interest. filed by Omega SA. Plaintiffs motion to amend the final judgment to include permanent injunctive relief is GRANTED as modified. Plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees and prejudgment interest is DENIED. An amended final judgment consistent with this Order will follow as separate order. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the motions at Dkts. 311 & 313. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 6/12/2019) (ks)
|
|
Filing
206
OPINION & ORDER re: 158 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. CIV. P. 26(g) and the Court's Inherent Powers, filed by 375 Canal, LLC, 156 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. CIV. P. 11(c), filed by 375 Canal, LLC. Defendant's motions for summary judgment on Count III and for sanctions are DENIED, but summary judgment is GRANTED on Count IV, and as further set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 3/13/2018) (ras)
|
|
Filing
77
OPINION & ORDER re: 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by 375 Canal, LLC. The Court DENIES 375 Canal's motion for summary judgment dismissing Counts III and IV. The parties are directed to appear at a status conference on Th ursday, January 12, 2017, at 11:00 A.M. in Courtroom 14C to set a date for trial. The Clerk is directed to terminate all open motions. (As further set forth in this order.) (Status Conference set for 1/12/2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 14C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Paul A. Crotty.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 12/22/2016) (cf)
|
|
Filing
22
OPINION & ORDER: re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Omega SA and Swatch SA (Plaintiffs) assert direct trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement and false designation of origin claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1125 against the three John Doe defenda nts for selling counterfeit Swatch and Omega watches at a store located at 375 Canal Street: John Doe 21 (Rahman), John Doe 22 (Kazijoynal), and John Doe 23. (Counts I and II). Plaintiffs assert a contributory infringement claim against 375 Canal LLC (375 Canal), the owner/lessor of the property at which the counterfeit goods werepurportedly sold. (Count III). Plaintiffs also allege that 375 Canal violated Section 231(2) of the New York Real Property Law by knowingly leasing its premises to be u sed for unlawful conduct. (Count IV). Defendant 375 Canal moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss Claims Three and Four, for failure to state a claim. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is D ENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 14. The defendant shall answer the complaint.The parties are directed to confer and submit a civil case management plan to the Court by June 7, 2013. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 5/20/2013) (rsh)
|
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.
