Essay on Harley-Davidson, Inc. V Grottanelli

715 Words Nov 2nd, 2013 3 Pages
Running head: Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli

Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli
Park University

HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC. v. GROTTANELLI
91 F.Supp.2d 544 (2000)
HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
Ronald GROTTANELLI, d/b/a The Hog Farm, Defendant.
No. 93-CV-144M.
United States District Court, W.D. New York.
March 24, 2000.
Michael, Best & Friedrich, Dyann L. Kostello, Milwaukee, WI, for plaintiff.
Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, Peter K. Sommer, Buffalo, NY, for defendant.

Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli
Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli was heard before the court in October 21 through 24, 1996. A decision and order was entered March 20, 1997 in which it was found that the defendant was
…show more content…
The plaintiff (Harley-Davidson), declined to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. A petition for Writ of Certiorari is a document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court (Certiorari, 2012). This court heard oral argument on the scope of the amended injunction on August 25, 1999. Several issues were raised at that time that require disposition prior to the entry of an amended injunction.
The plaintiff asked the court to address its claim of unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. As I previously found that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction with respect to both the "Hog" and "Bar and Shield" trademarks, it was not necessary at that time to address the plaintiff's claim of unfair competition under the Lanham Act. In light of the Second Circuit's finding that "hog" is generic, however, the claim of unfair competition impacts on the scope of the amended injunction. While the Second Circuit found that "hog" is generic as applied to large motorcycles and that defendant may use the word to identify its motorcycles and products, plaintiff may nonetheless raise a claim of unfair competition under the Lanham Act. Genesee Brewing Co., Inc. v. Stroh Brewing Company,124 F.3d 137, 149 (2d Cir.1997), Murphy Door Bed Co. v. Interior Sleep Systems,874 F.2d 95, 102 (2d Cir.1989). To recover on a claim of unfair competition under

Related Documents