CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Competitive Associates, Inc. v. Fantastic Fudge, Inc.

Defendant Chartered New England Corp. moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging it was time-barred and failed to state a claim, while also seeking an order for plaintiffs to post security for costs and attorney's fees. The lawsuit, brought by Competitive Associates, Inc., asserted violations of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, including claims related to failure to provide a prospectus and a conspiracy to defraud in the purchase of securities from entities like Fantastic Fudge, Inc. The court largely denied the motion to dismiss, finding questions of fact regarding the discovery of untrue statements and the alleged fraudulent scheme, thereby sustaining claims under §§ 12(1), 12(2), 17(a) of the 1933 Act, and §§ 15, 10(b) of the 1934 Act. Although it denied the request for attorney's fees security, the court ordered plaintiffs to post a single original bond of $2,400 for costs, citing the considerable expenses defendants would incur during discovery.

Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentFailure to State a ClaimSecurity for CostsBroker-Dealer LiabilityProspectus OmissionConspiracy to Defraud
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CBS Inc. v. Liederman

CBS Inc. sued David and William Liederman for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act and New York law, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from opening a restaurant named “Television City.” CBS operates a television production facility by the same name and holds a registered service mark. The court applied the Polaroid factors to evaluate the likelihood of confusion, finding that despite the identical marks, the strength of CBS's mark was limited to television production, and there was insufficient proximity between a production studio and a restaurant. Consequently, the court denied CBS's motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion or success on the merits, and also rejected the unfair competition and dilution claims.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionTrademark DilutionLanham ActPreliminary InjunctionLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid FactorsService MarkRestaurant IndustryEntertainment Industry
References
25
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. sued its former sales executive, Max Morganstern, for unfair competition and breach of a non-compete agreement after he joined a competitor, Summit Pharmacy, Inc., and solicited Innoviant's customer referral sources. Innoviant sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Morganstern from contacting 114 key New York referral sources. The court found Innoviant unlikely to succeed on its breach of contract claim because the employment agreement was deemed unenforceable due to a later signed document. However, the court found Innoviant likely to succeed on its unfair competition claim, as Morganstern misappropriated a list of potential referral sources and business cards. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, restraining Morganstern from contacting the specified referral sources until February 24, 2006, conditioned on Innoviant posting a $100,000 security bond.

Preliminary InjunctionUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractNon-compete ClauseTrade SecretsCustomer ListsConfidential InformationEmployment AgreementSales ExecutiveReferral Sources
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

Cytyc Corp. v. Neuromedical Systems, Inc.

Cytyc Corporation initiated this action against Neuromedical Systems, Inc. (NSI) and two of its officers, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and New York General Business Law, alleging unlawful disparagement of its ThinPrep system. NSI filed a counterclaim, asserting claims under the Lanham Act, for defamation, and for statutory and common law unfair competition under New York State law. The core of NSI's counterclaim was that Cytyc made numerous false or misleading statements regarding its ThinPrep system and NSI's Papnet system. The court granted Cytyc's motion to dismiss NSI's defamation claim, finding the statements either true or non-actionable opinion, and not concerning NSI. However, the court denied dismissal for NSI's Lanham Act, General Business Law, and common law unfair competition claims, determining that a small number of the challenged statements by Cytyc could provide a basis for relief.

Lanham ActUnfair CompetitionFalse AdvertisingDefamationProduct DisparagementMedical Device MarketingFDA ApprovalCivil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)CounterclaimThinPrep System
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conan Properties, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.

Conan Properties, Inc. (CPI) sued Mattel, Inc. for copyright infringement, Lanham Act violations, unfair competition, dilution, breach of contract, and fraud and misrepresentation concerning the "CONAN THE BARBARIAN" character and Mattel's "He-Man" toy line. Mattel moved to dismiss the amended complaint on several grounds, including failure to plead compliance with copyright prerequisites and fully plead a Lanham Act cause of action, and absence of jurisdiction over state law claims. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, determined that CPI's copyrights were derivative works and that claims of infringement of unregistered copyrights (beyond eight attached registrations) and the fraud and misrepresentation claim for lack of particularity should be dismissed without prejudice, allowing CPI to file a second amended complaint. The court denied dismissal motions for Lanham Act, unfair competition, and dilution claims, maintaining pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActUnfair CompetitionDilutionBreach of ContractFraudMisrepresentationDerivative WorkFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b)
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Act for Health v. Case Management Associates, Inc.

Plaintiffs Act for Health d/b/a Professional Case Management (PCM) and its subsidiary PCM of Tennessee, Inc. (PCMT) sued defendant Case Management Associates, Inc. d/b/a Freedom Care (Freedom Care). Plaintiffs provide in-home care under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and allege Freedom Care operates unlawfully in Tennessee without proper licensing and a certificate of need. Plaintiffs also claimed tortious interference with business relationships, tortious inducement to breach employment agreements, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and common law unfair competition. The Court found Freedom Care's licensing arrangement with Jellico Community Hospital unlawful and granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on that issue. It denied summary judgment for both parties on the TCPA and inducement claims, but granted summary judgment to Freedom Care on the unfair competition claim. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining claims.

Workers' CompensationHome Health ServicesLicensing RegulationsCertificate of NeedTortious InterferenceUnfair CompetitionTennessee Consumer Protection ActRestrictive CovenantsTrade SecretsSummary Judgment
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sorias v. National Cellular USA, Inc.

This is a patent infringement case where Plaintiffs Yeoshua Sorias and Zilicon Accessories LLC alleged patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition against two groups of defendants: Prong Defendants (Yishai Z. Pliner, Lloyd Gladstone, and Prong, LLC) and NC Defendants (National Cellular USA, Inc., Mark Grossman, Zeev Grossman, and David Grossman). Plaintiffs claimed their patented detachably integrated battery charger design for mobile phones was infringed. The court granted Prong Defendants' motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on the design patent and dismissed unfair competition claims as federally preempted. For NC Defendants, the court dismissed claims regarding provisional patent rights and trade secret misappropriation, holding that a 'new product idea' is not a protected trade secret. All remaining state law claims against NC Defendants were dismissed without prejudice, with the court declining supplemental jurisdiction given ongoing state court litigation. The case is currently stayed pending a USPTO review of the '486 Patent.

Patent InfringementTrade Secrets MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentDesign PatentProvisional Patent RightsLicense AgreementNon-Disclosure AgreementFederal Preemption
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Idea Nuova, Inc.

Plaintiff GMA Accessories, Inc. sued defendant Idea Nuova, Inc. for copyright infringement. Idea Nuova filed several counterclaims, including trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description, false representation under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, trademark dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, cancellation of trademark registration under Section 37, fraudulent trademark registration application under Sections 35(a) and 38, declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and common law unfair competition. GMA moved to dismiss these amended counterclaims. The court denied GMA's motion to dismiss the trademark infringement and dilution claims, as Idea Nuova sufficiently alleged secondary meaning and the elements of the dilution claim. However, the court granted dismissal for the cancellation of GMA's pending 'Room in a Box' trademark application, the Section 38 fraudulent registration claim due to pleading deficiencies, and the declaratory relief claim for lack of an actual controversy. The court retained jurisdiction over the cancellation claim for GMA's registered 'Room on the Run' trademark and the common law unfair competition claim.

Trademark InfringementCopyright InfringementLanham ActTrademark DilutionDeclaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissCounterclaimsFraudulent RegistrationUnfair CompetitionSecondary Meaning
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 511 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational