Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
U.S. Polo Ass'n v. PRL USA Holdings (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2011)

U.S. Polo Ass'n v. PRL USA Holdings (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2011)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,262|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Charles Colman Law, PLLC on May 16, 2011
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

07/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT
OF
NEW
YORK
x
UNITED STATES
POLO
ASSOCIATION,
and
USPA
PROPERTIES,
INC.,INC.,
Plaintiffs,
09
Civ.
9476

OPINIONPRL
USA
HOLDINGS,
INC.,
L'OREAL USA,
INC.,
and
At
--
)
USDCSDNY
efendants.
DOCUMENTELECfRONICALLY
F1LED
DOC
#:
--x
A P
PEA
RAN
C E
S:
D
ATE
FILED:
l:\'
·1
!
I
l
for
Plaintiffs
BAKER
&
HOSTETLER LLP
45
Rockefeller
Plaza
New
York,
NY
10111By:
Gerald
Ferguson,
Esq.
David Sheehan, Esq.
for
Defendant
L'Oreal
USA
t
PAUL, HASTINGS,
JANOFSKY
&
WALKER,
LLP
75
East
55
Street
New
York,
NY
10022
By:
Robert
L.
Sherman,
Esq.
At
endant
PRL
KELLEY
DRYE
&
WARREN
LLP
101
Park
Avenue
New
York,
NY
10178By:
William
R.
Golden,
Jr.,
Esq.
 
Sweet,D.
J.
In
this
action,
the
plaintiffs
Uni
States
Polo
Association,Inc.
("US
PAil
)
and
USPA
Properties,
Inc.
("Properties"
)
(collectively,
the
"USPA
Parties"
or
"Plaintiffs")
sought
a
declaration
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
2201:
(1)
that
they
have
the
right
to license
and
sell
in
the
United
States
fragrance products
and
packaging
bearing
"U.S.
POLO
ASSN.
," the
Double
Horsemen
Trademark and
"1890,1/
and
other
products
bearingthe
marks
identif
in
Trademark
Application
Serial
Nos.
products
identifiedin
those
applications
i
(2)
that
their
use
and
licensing
of
such
fragrance products
and
packaging
does
not
violate
Section
43(a)
and
(c)
of
the
Lanham
Act,
15
U.S.C.
§
1125(a) and
(c),
nor
constitute
infringement,
dilution
or
unfair
competition with
respect to
the
rights
of
the
defendants
PRL
USA
Holdings,
Inc.
("PRL")
and

USA,
Inc.

(collectively,
the
"PRL
Parties"
or
"Defendants")
i
and
(3)
that
their
use
and
licensing
of
such
fragranceproducts
and
packaging
does
not
violate
the
common
law
of
the
State
of
New
York
relating
to
trademark
infringement,
unfair
competition
and
trademark
dilution.
1
 
The
PRL
Parties
have
brought
counterclaims
against
the
USPA
Parties
for
trademark
infringement,
unfair
competition,
and
trademark
dilution
under
Sections
32,
43
(a)
and
43
(c)
the
Lanham
Act,
15
U.S.C.
§§
1114,
1125
(a)
and
(c),
and
common
law
trademark
infringement,
trade
dress
infringement,
trademark
dilution, unfair
competition,
unfair
and
decept
practices,
and
misappropriation
in
violation
ofthe
statutory
and
common
law
each
state
which
the
USPA
Parties
do
businessincluding
New
York
General
Business
Law
("GBU')
Sections
133,
349
and
360
1.
The
PRL
Parties
also
fil
a
motion
for
a
preliminary
injunction.
Upon
all
proceedings
had
herein
and
the
findingsof
fact
and
conclusions of
law
set
forth
ow,
the
USPA
Parties'
request
for
a
declaratory
judgment
is
denied,
the
PRL
Part
,
request
for
a
permanent
injunction
is
granted.
Prior
Proceedings
This
action
was commenced
by
the
USPA
Parties
on
November
13,
2009,
naming
only
PRL
as
a
defendant.
On
February
II,
2010,
L'Oreal's
motion
to
intervene
was
granted.
PRL
filed
its
answer
and
counterclaims
on
February
16, 2010.
On
March
2,
2

Activity (4)

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

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)//-->