Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cagan v. Popeye's of Maryland, 98-1291 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1291 Visitors: 47
Filed: Aug. 31, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1291 MARTIN ROB CAGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and AMERICA’S FAVORITE BAGEL, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, versus POPEYE’S OF MARYLAND, INCORPORATED; CMI MAN- AGEMENT COMPANY; FRANK DIMICK; JOSEPH SEVALL; AMERICA’S FAVORITE CHICKEN COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees, and THE AMERICAN BAGEL COMPANY, d/b/a Chesapeake Bagel Bakery, d/b/a David Lavine, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of M
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1291 MARTIN ROB CAGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and AMERICA’S FAVORITE BAGEL, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, versus POPEYE’S OF MARYLAND, INCORPORATED; CMI MAN- AGEMENT COMPANY; FRANK DIMICK; JOSEPH SEVALL; AMERICA’S FAVORITE CHICKEN COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees, and THE AMERICAN BAGEL COMPANY, d/b/a Chesapeake Bagel Bakery, d/b/a David Lavine, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-2813-JFM) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Rob Cagan, Appellant Pro Se. Allan Pike Hillman, NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN, RUBIN & GIBBER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Jay Ira Morstein, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s orders granting De- fendants’ motion for summary judgment on Appellants’ complaint alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cagan v. Popeye’s of Maryland, Inc., No. CA-96-2813-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 21, 1997; Jan. 28, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer