Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corp. v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 082313 FED2, 12-3936-cv
|Party Name:||Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, Bayer CropScience LP, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants. [*]|
|Attorney:||FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS: Phillip Barengolts, (Robert M. Newbury, Jeffrey A. Wakolbinger, Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Chicago, IL, David A. Zwally, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, New York, NY, on the brief) Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Chi...|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: Pierre N. Leval, José A. Cabranes, Chester J. Straub, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||August 23, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rdday of August, two thousand thirteen.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the July 31, 2012 judgment of the District Court granting summary judgment for plaintiff-appellee is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellee, Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation ("Aceto"), commenced this suit against defendants-appellants Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and Bayer CropScience LP (jointly "Bayer" or "appellants") seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Specifically, Aceto sought a judgment that its "PROFINE 75" mark, associated with a herbicide product, does not infringe on Bayer's trademark rights in their "PROLINE mark, " associated with a fungicide product. Before...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP