This case was last updated from PACER on 10/22/2021 at 16:35:05 (UTC).

Research Products Corporation v. Think Crucial LLC

Case Summary

On September 28, 2021, Research Products Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “Research Products”), represented by Nicole Michele Marschean of Foley & Lardner LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Think Crucial LLC (“Defendant” or “Think Crucial”), seeking injunctive relief, punitive damages, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and other relief for the Defendant’s alleged United States Patent and Trademark Infringement and unfair competition. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York with Judge Cathy Seibel presiding

 

This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq., resulting from Defendant’s alleged unauthorized manufacture, offers to sell, and sale of air filters in the United States that infringe at least two patents. This action also arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., New York General Business Law, and New York common law resulting from Defendant’s advertising products in a manner that allegedly infringes Plaintiff’s trademarks and from selling products in packaging that allegedly infringes Plaintiff’s trademarks.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant’s use of identical or confusingly similar imitations of the Aprilaire® trademarks is likely to deceive, confuse and mislead actual and prospective purchasers before, during, and after purchase into believing that Defendant’s products are manufactured or authorized by, or in some way associated with Plaintiff, when they are not.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendant has engaged in the above-described infringing activities knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff’s rights, or with bad faith, for the purpose of trading on the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff’s Aprilaire® trademarks.”

 

Further, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Further, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s misuse of the Aprilaire® trademarks, consumers are likely to be confused and deceived into believing that a connection or association exists between Plaintiff and Defendant, when there is none, causing additional injury to Plaintiff, and the reputation and goodwill of the Aprilaire® trademarks.”

 

There are eight claims for relief laid down by the plaintiff. The first and second claims alleged are for infringement of the patents-in-suit, the third and seventh claims alleged are for trademark infringement, the fourth and eight claims alleged are for unfair competition and passing-off respectively, the fifth claim alleged is for trademark dilution and the sixth claim alleged is for dilution and injury to business reputation.

 

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to pass a judgment in favour of Plaintiff along with an award of permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 17 U.S.C. § 502 and 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and an award of damages, including supplemental damages, for any continuing post-verdict infringement; enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; actual damages, and directing that such profits or actual damages be trebled in accordance with § 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117. Further, the Plaintiff requested the Court for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and grant any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    7:21-CV-08063

  • Filing Date:

    09/28/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Cathy Seibel

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Research Products Corporation

1015 East Washington Avenue

Madison, WI 53703

Defendant

Think Crucial LLC

413 Maple Avenue

Nyack, NY 10960

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Nicole Michele Marschean

Attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP

90 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10016

 

Court Documents

#8

#7

6 #4

Exhibit 4

6 #3

Exhibit 3

6 #2

Exhibit 2

6 #1

Exhibit 1

6 #6

Main Document

#5

#4

#3

#2

1 #4

Exhibit 4

1 #3

Exhibit 3

1 #2

Exhibit 2

1 #1

Exhibit 1

1 #1

Main Document

6 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) AO 120 FORM TRADEMARK - CASE OPENING - SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1116, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is hereby advised that a court action has been filed on the following trademark(s) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office electronically notified via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)..(pc) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) AO 120 FORM PATENT - CASE OPENING - SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 290, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is hereby advised that a court action has been filed on the following patent(s) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office electronically notified via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)..(pc) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) COMPLAINT against Think Crucial LLC. Document filed by Research Products Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4).(Marschean, Nicole) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT PLEADING. Notice to Attorney Nicole Michele Marschean to RE-FILE Document No. #1 Complaint,. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the wrong party/parties whom the pleading is against were selected;. Re-file the pleading using the event type Complaint found under the event list Complaints and Other Initiating Documents - attach the correct signed PDF - select the individually named filer/filers - select the individually named party/parties the pleading is against. (pc) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketCase Designated ECF. (pc) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketMagistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (pc) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketCASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Cathy Seibel. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(pc) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) AO 120 FORM TRADEMARK - NOTICE OF SUBMISSION BY ATTORNEY. AO 120 Form Patent/Trademark for case opening submitted to court for review..(Marschean, Nicole) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) AO 120 FORM PATENT - NOTICE OF SUBMISSION BY ATTORNEY. AO 120 Form Patent/Trademark for case opening submitted to court for review..(Marschean, Nicole) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Research Products Corporation..(Marschean, Nicole) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Marschean, Nicole) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT PLEADING - FILED AGAINST PARTY ERROR -COMPLAINT against Research Products Corporation. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-25123476)Document filed by Research Products Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4).(Marschean, Nicole) Modified on 9/29/2021 (pc). (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Nicole Michele Marschean