Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Orange County Choppers v Olaes Enter

Orange County Choppers v Olaes Enter

Ratings: (0)|Views: 197|Likes:
Published by propertyintangible
Denying Olaes Enter. motion to dismiss counterclaims against Orange County Choppers and licensees
Denying Olaes Enter. motion to dismiss counterclaims against Orange County Choppers and licensees

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: propertyintangible on Aug 29, 2010
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

09/08/2010

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - XORANGE COUNTY CHOPPERS, INC., a New:06 Civ. 7211 (WCC)York Corporation,:
ECF CASE
Plaintiff-Counterdefendant,:- against -:OLAES ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a ODM, a
OPINION
California Corporation,:
 AND ORDER 
Defendant-Counterplaintiff,:- against -:VENDING SUPPLY, INC., a Nevada Corpora-:tion, and INTERBRAND LLC, a Delawarelimited liability corporation,:Additional Counterdefendants.:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
 A P P E A R A N C E S :
TABNER, RYAN AND KENIRY, LLP
 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterdefendant Orange CountyChoppers, Inc.
18 Corporate Woods BoulevardAlbany, New York 12211WILLIAM J. KENIRY, ESQ.BENJAMIN F. NEIDL, ESQ.Of CounselBLEAKLEY PLATT & SCHMIDT, LLPOne North Lexington AvenueWhite Plains, NY 10601THOMAS G. BAILEY, JR., ESQ.Of Counsel- and -
Copies E-Mailed to Counsel of Record 
Case 7:06-cv-07211-WCC Document 54 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 33
Case 1:06-cv-07211-CM Document 54 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 33
 
 A P P E A R A N C E S :(continued)
-ii-LAW OFFICES OF DARREN J. QUINN12702 Via Cortina, Suite 105Del Mar, CA 92014DARREN J. QUINN, ESQ.Of Counsel
 Attorneys for Defendant-Counterplaintiff OlaesEnterprises, Inc. d/b/a ODM 
MARSH MENKEN & WEINGARDEN PLLC
 Attorneys for AdditionalCounterdefendant Vending Supply,Inc.
81 Main Street, Suite 305White Plains, New York 10601MITCHELL I. WEINGARDEN, ESQ.DAVID A. MENKEN, ESQ.Of CounselMARKOTSIS & LIEBERMAN
 Attorneys for AdditionalCounterdefendant Interbrand, LLC
183 Broadway, Suite 210Hicksville, New York 11801DOUGLAS M. LIEBERMAN, ESQ.Of Counsel
Case 7:06-cv-07211-WCC Document 54 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 33
Case 1:06-cv-07211-CM Document 54 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 33
 
OCC is a manufacturer of customized motorcycles and is a New York State corporation
1
with its principal place of business in the Village of Montgomery, County of Orange, New York.(
See
Complt. ¶ 1; Counterclaims ¶ 2.)ODM, a graphic design company, is a California corporation with its principal place of 
2
 business in the County of San Diego, California. (
See
Complt. ¶ 3; Counterclaims ¶ 1.)VSI, a Nevada corporation with it principal place of business in Nevada, manufactures,
3
markets and sells tattoo designs and stickers. (
See
Counterclaims ¶ 3.)Interbrand appears to be in the business of brand design and is a Delaware limited liability
4
company located in New York and/or Pennsylvania. (
See
Counterclaims ¶ 4.)1
CONNER, Sr. D.J.:
Plaintiff Orange County Choppers, Inc. (“OCC”) brings this action against Olaes
1
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a ODM (“ODM”) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. OCC and
2
ODM entered into a licensing agreement pursuant to which ODM agreed to pay royalties to OCCin return for a license to use OCC’s trade name and trademarks in designing T-shirts and other apparel. OCC alleges that ODM breached the license agreement by failing to pay $846,723.99 inroyalties due under the contract. ODM, in turn, brings copyright infringement claims against OCC,Vending Supply, Inc. (“VSI”) and Interbrand LCC, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 101,
et seq.
, alleging
34
that they marketed and sold designs on which ODM owns copyrights. In addition, ODM asserts alitany of counterclaims against OCC for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference withcontractual relations. OCC, VSI and Interbrand now move pursuant to F
ED
.
 
R.
 
C
IV
.
 
P. 12(b)(6) for dismissal of all but one of ODM’s claims. For the following reasons, their motion is granted in partand denied in part.
Case 7:06-cv-07211-WCC Document 54 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 33
Case 1:06-cv-07211-CM Document 54 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 33

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
arabella_bishop liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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