Search for: "Pandora Jewelry LLC"
Results 1 - 6 of 6
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
14 Oct, 2008 12:31 pm
Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 WL 4533902 (D. Md.) The parties compete in the specialty jewelry market-they make charms that are designed
to be strung together. Pandora sued Chamilia this time for false advertising, injurious falsehood, tortious interference, and unfair
competition. In 2006, Pandora sued Chamilia for patent infringement. Chamilia counterclaimed for tortious interference and antitrust
violations. Pandora's motion to bifurcate the trials ...
2 Oct, 2007 3:02 am
Chamilia, LLC v. Pandora Jewelry, LLC, 2007 WL 2781246 (S.D.N.Y.) The parties compete to design and make charm bracelets. Customers ... 450 resellers signed the letters. Pandora later sent letters to its resellers saying that "the Chamilia sales force has been trying to strong-arm some of our customers ... going to have to
decide whether to continue the relationship or switch to another retailer, and Pandora's statements about Chamilia could influence that.
Perhaps more persuasively, the court concluded ...
2 Sep 1:55 am
In passing, note that the issue of pre-grant damages (provisional rights) was addressed in Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC (D. Md. 2008). Patentee did not get them.
See also Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilla LLC, No. 03-07587 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2003) and later SDNY case--> "The existence of an actual controversy is an absolute predicate for declaratory judgment
jurisdiction." GAF Bldg. Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp ...
15 Jul, 2008 4:45 am
... under Fed. R. Evid. 801 and as lacking authentication under Fed. R. Evid. 901. See, e.g., Novak v. Tucows Inc., No. 06-CV-1909, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21269 (E.D.N.Y. March 26,
2007); Chamilia LLC v. Pandora Jewelry LLC, No. 04-CV-6017, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 71246 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2007); and St. Luke's Cataract & Laser Inst. P.A. v. Sanderson, No. 8:06-CV-223, 2006
U.S. Dist. Lexis 28873 ...
17 Oct, 2008 10:20 pm
Pandora Jewelry, LLC v. Chamilia, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79232 (D. Md. Sep. 30, 2008) Plaintiff requestor's suit against defendant producer claimed false advertising, tortious interference
with prospective economic advantage and unfair competition, in connection with certain communications by producer to many of requestor's customers. Requestor accused producer of
spoliation when producer was unable [...]
12 Sep, 2008 2:33 pm
... in ED Texas: (PATracer), Provisional rights : (Part I: calculating a reasonable royalty: Parker-Hannifin Corp v Champion Labs - Patently-O), (Part II: substantially identical
claims: Pandora Jewelry v Chamilia - Patently-O), PAIR offline: major problem because USPTO has
refused ... ), GANGA merely descriptive of department store services, says TTAB, equivalently: In re M6 Ventures LLC (non precedential):
(TTABlog), TTAB finds BOYD'S and BOYDS confusingly similar for clothing, ...
Search on: Blawgs.FM | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blog Search | Technorati | Google | MSN | Yahoo!