C&N Corporation v. Kane et al
Plaintiff: C&N Corporation
Defendant: Gregory Kane and Illinois River Winery Inc
Case Number: 1:2012cv00257
Filed: March 16, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Office: Green Bay Office
County: Door
Presiding Judge: William C Griesbach
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 44
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 140 DECISION AND ORDER granting 118 Motion for Contempt; withdrawing 120 Motion for TRO; denying 135 Motion for Attorney Fees, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 10/23/2015. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants violated the terms of the perma nent injunction entered in this Courts November 13, 2013 judgment in this case by selling wine using names that are not more than a colorable variation of Plaintiffs HALLOWINE mark; Defendants are ENJOINED from continuing their violation of the terms of the injunction as described in the DECISION AND ORDER; Defendants shall recall from their distributors and retail outlets all product using the name Hallow Wine; and Defendants shall pay all profits from sales of infringing product in 2014 and 2015 to Plaintiff.(cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)
January 24, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 112 ORDER denying 97 Motion to Stay pending appeal, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 01/24/2014. See Order for full detail. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)
November 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER granting 85 Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification and entry of Final Judgment, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 11/12/2013. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) in favor of C&N Corporation d/b/a/ Door Penin sula Winery as to its claims for trademark infringement of its rights in the HALLOWINE word mark under the Lanham Act and state common law, including recovery of Defendants profits for infringing sales in the amount of $508,864.26. See Decision and Order for full detail. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)
June 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 54 DECISION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 6/14/2013. Defendants' 44 Motion to Seal is denied and the 49 Deposition Transcript of Robert Paul Pollman is stricken from the record. Plaintiff is entitled to recover Defendants' profits for infringing sales in the amount of $508,864.26. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)
May 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER DENYING 32 Motion to Seal, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 05/13/2013. The Clerk is directed to unseal the plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) and all documents and exhibits filed in support of the motion (ECF Nos. 29 and 30). Defendants motion 44 does not comport with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that it is unsigned. Therefore, DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED to promptly correct their error. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the d efendants must show cause within 7 days why the April 9, 2013 deposition of Robert Pollman should be included in the record. Plaintiff may file a response within 7 days thereafter. Defendants are also ordered to provide good cause why any part of the transcript, if filed, should be sealed. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)
April 24, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER DIRECTING the party who has designated as confidential the material specified in the plaintiff's motion to seal, ECF 32 , to provide good cause to maintain the material under seal now that it has been filed with the Court. signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 04/24/2013. Failure to do so within 15 days will result in the material being unsealed. In the alternative, the material designated confidential may be withdrawn on agreement of the parties. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)
January 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER GRANTING 21 Motion to Compel, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 01/07/2013. Defendants Gregory Kane and Illinois River Winery shall serve amended responses to plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories within ten days of this Order an d provide complete responses. Defendants also shall produce all documents in their possession, custody, or control that are responsive to plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents and Things within ten days of this Order. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)
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 Wisconsin Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: C&N Corporation v. Kane et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: C&N Corporation
Represented By: Aaron T Olejniczak
Represented By: Christopher M Scherer
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: Gregory Kane
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: Illinois River Winery 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?