Filed: May 9, 2012UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITNo. 10-1664(3:07-cv-00168-DSC)BELK, INCORPORATED; BELK INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,Plaintiffs
–
Appellants,v.MEYER CORPORATION, U.S.; MEYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIESLIMITED,Defendants
− Appellees.
O R D E RThe Court amends its opinion filed May 8, 2012, asfollows:On page 18, last line of text above footnote
–
- theparenthetical date
“
(Jan. 25, 2010)
”
is corrected to read
“
(Jan.
25, 2012).”
For the Court
–
By Direction/s/ Patricia S. ConnorClerk
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
B
ELK
, I
NCORPORATED
; B
ELK
I
NTERNATIONAL
, I
NCORPORATED
,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.No. 10-1664
M
EYER
C
ORPORATION
, U.S.; M
EYER
I
NTELLECTUAL
P
ROPERTIES
L
IMITED
,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.David S. Cayer, Magistrate Judge.(3:07-cv-00168-DSC)Argued: January 25, 2012Decided: May 8, 2012Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Davis wrote the opin-ion, in which Judge Duncan and Judge Keenan joined.
COUNSELARGUED:
W. Thad Adams, III, SHUMAKER, LOOP &KENDRICK, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellants. DeanA. Dickie, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE,
PLC, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF:
Rodrick J. Enns, ENNS & ARCHER, LLP, Winston-Salem, NorthCarolina, for Appellants. Andrew S. Chamberlin, Alex J.Hagan, ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,for Appellees.
OPINION
DAVIS, Circuit Judge:In May and June 2010, Appellee Meyer Corporation, U.S.,("Meyer")
1
and Appellants Belk, Incorporated, and Belk Inter-national, Incorporated (collectively, "Belk"), clashed in anine-day trial with eighteen witnesses who educated the juryat length about the design, creation, marketing and profitabil-ity of high-end cookware. At the conclusion of trial, the dis-trict court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’sverdict in favor of Meyer on its claims of trade dress infringe-ment,
see
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and unfair and deceptive trade practices,
see
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.
2
The court trebled thedamages amount found by the jury to $1,260,000 pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 and denied Belk’s remaining requestsfor declaratory relief.Belk failed to file a postverdict motion pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) or 59 and instead
1
There are two Appellees in this case. Meyer Corporation, U.S. ("Meyer U.S.") is a Delaware corporation that supplies the cookware, and AppelleeMeyer Intellectual Properties Limited ("Meyer IP") is a British VirginIslands company that holds several patents related to the "AnolonAdvanced" cookware at issue in this case. Meyer U.S. is the sole autho-rized licensee of the various patents Meyer IP holds in the U.S. retail mar-ket. The two entities are referred to collectively here as "Meyer."
2
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes, including the entry of final judgment. For ease of referencethroughout this opinion, we refer to the magistrate judge as the districtcourt.
2B
ELK
, I
NC
. v. M
EYER
C
ORP
.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
