Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
P.S. Prods. v. Activision Blizzard - MTA Brief

P.S. Prods. v. Activision Blizzard - MTA Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0 |Likes:
Published by slburstein
P.S. Prods. v. Activision Blizzard - MTA Brief
P.S. Prods. v. Activision Blizzard - MTA Brief

More info:

Published by: slburstein on Aug 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/17/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASP. S. PRODUCTS, INC., andBILLY PENNINGTON, Individually PLAINTIFFSv.
 
Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-342-KGBACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., andTREYARCH CORPORATION. DEFENDANTSBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to amend its complaintwith leave of the Court, and provides that leave to amend should be freely given when justice sorequires. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action on June 5, 2013. Defendants filed aMotion to Dismiss on July 18, 2013. Plaintiffs’ Response is due on August 16, 2013 and willfile said Response.Plaintiffs wish to amend their Complaint to include the claim for Unfair Competition,Violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Infringement of Common Law Trademark.It has become clear to the Plaintiffs through the responsive pleadings that have been filed that theDefendants in violation of Unfair Competition by Misappropriation, Arkansas’s Deceptive TradePractices Act and have infringed on the Plaintiff common law trademark. The paramount factsof this case revolve around the Defendants offering for sale video games that contain illegalimages of the Plaintiff’s patented design. No prior art existed of this design prior to thePlaintiffs’ patent. Likelihood of confusion to purchasers and potential purchasers will and hasoccurred.
Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 11 Filed 08/15/13 Page 1 of 3
 
-2-If the Plaintiffs are not granted leave to amend their complaint it would prevent thePlaintiff from filing a new action to preserve their claims. If leave is granted justice will beserved. The Amended Complaint will not prejudice Defendants in any way or delay trial of thismatter. Granting leave will not delay the trial. Justice requires that leave be given to amend thiscomplaint. The Plaintiff has not previously amended its complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’sMotion should be granted.Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for leave to amend.Dated: August 15, 2013 STEWART LAW FIRM/s/ Chris H. StewartBy: Chris H. StewartArk. Bar No. 03-222Attorney for Plaintiffs904 Garland StreetLittle Rock, AR 72201Phone: 501-353-1364Fax: 501-353-1263Email:arklaw@comcast.net 
Case 4:13-cv-00342-KGB Document 11 Filed 08/15/13 Page 2 of 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->