Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Versatop Support Systems, Inc. v. Georgia Expo, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

November 13, 2019

VERSATOP SUPPORT SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGIA EXPO, INC., Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          ANNA J. BROWN United States Senior District Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Mandate (#86) issued May 28, 2019, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanding this matter for further proceedings.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff Versatop Support System LLC's request for entry of a permanent injunction.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant Georgia Expo, Inc., and alleged five claims in its First Amended Complaint: violation of patent law (Ct. I); violation of copyright law (Counts II and III); and violation of trademark law (Counts IV and V). Plaintiff's trademarks at issue are "2.0" and "Pipe & Drape 2.0."

         The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on all counts.

         On February 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendations (F&R)(#45) and recommended the Court grant Defendant's Cross-Motion on all counts and deny Plaintiff's Motion. On April 13, 2017, this Court adopted the F&R, entered Judgment in favor of Defendant, and dismissed Plaintiff's case with prejudice. On February 12, 2018, the Court subsequently denied Defendant's Motion for extraordinary attorneys' fees.

         Plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal of the case, and Defendant appealed the Court's denial of its request for attorneys' fees.

         On appeal the Federal Circuit noted "[o]nly the trademark issue is before us" and addressed only two issues: whether there was a violation of trademark law and whether Defendant was entitled to an award of extraordinary attorneys' fees. On the trademark issue the Federal Circuit found this Court's adoption of the F&R was erroneous as a matter of law and that there was a violation of the Trademark Act based on Defendant's admitted use of Plaintiff's trademarks. The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of Defendant, stated "judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff," and remanded the case "for any appropriate further proceedings." The Federal Circuit also denied without opinion Defendant's appeal on the attorneys' fees issue.

         Following return of the Mandate Magistrate Judge Jelderks contacted the parties and directed them to confer regarding the form of judgment to be entered in light of the Federal Circuit holding. When the parties were unable to agree on a form of judgment, Magistrate Judge Jelderks directed the parties to submit their proposed respective forms of judgment and supporting memoranda for the court's consideration.

         On October 4, 2019, each party filed a proposed form of judgment and a supporting memorandum. On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed the same papers again, but Plaintiff included additional Declarations that were referenced but not included in their earlier submission.

         Although the parties concur the court must now enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor as to Counts IV and V for Trademark Infringement, they disagree as to whether such judgment should also include injunctive relief. Plaintiff contends it is entitled to a form of judgment that includes a permanent injunction against Defendant, but Defendant contends entry of a permanent injunction as part of the judgment is not appropriate.

         STANDARDS

         The Lanham Act permits a court to grant injunctions "according to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable" to prevent further trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. § 1116. See also Reno Air ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.