Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, No. 09-3361, involved an action alleging violations of sections 32(1) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. section 1051, et seq., and New York General Business Law section 349, as well as common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court vacated summary judgment for defendant on the ground that defendant's single act of shipping an item into New York, combined with the affiliated business's substantial activity involving New York, give rise to personal jurisdiction over defendant.
In US v. Shyne, No. 08-0865, the court affirmed defendants' convictions for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and money laundering, holding that the district court's order denying defendants' application to require government production of all written or recorded statements, including comprehensive notes from proffer sessions, of coconspirators who would not be testifying at trial but whose statements the government intended to introduce at trial as statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy was proper because the disclosure requirements of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. section 3500, did not apply to non-testifying declarants.
- Full Text of Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, No. 09-3361
- Full Text of US v. Shyne, No. 08-0865