Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DZHUNAYDOV v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., 12-CV-2188 (FB) (RER). (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20131224c08 Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2013
Summary: ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK, Senior District Judge. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as premature. See FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 56(d). In particular, the licensing agreement may offer additional evidence to refute the claim by defendant Emerson Electric Co. that it was the mere trademark licensor and had no involvement in the design, manufacture, sale or distribution of the subject saw. See Automobile Inc. Co. of Hartford Connecticut v. Murray, Inc., 571 F.Supp.2d 408 , 429 (W.D.N.
More

ORDER

FREDERIC BLOCK, Senior District Judge.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as premature. See FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 56(d). In particular, the licensing agreement may offer additional evidence to refute the claim by defendant Emerson Electric Co. that it was the mere trademark licensor and had no involvement in the design, manufacture, sale or distribution of the subject saw. See Automobile Inc. Co. of Hartford Connecticut v. Murray, Inc., 571 F.Supp.2d 408, 429 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) (extending liability to trademark licensors who are not within the formal chain of manufacture, sale or distribution, when the licensor is "capable of exercising control over [the] quality [of the product].").

The stay on discovery is lifted. Defendant Emerson Electric Co. shall produce within thirty (30) days a copy of the licensing agreement to plaintiff, together with any further discovery as directed by Magistrate Judge Reyes.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

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