Petitioners' motion to file portions of the emergency motion and the petition for writ of mandamus under seal is granted. The motion to exceed the page limitation on the petition is granted. The emergency motion for an order suspending trial is denied. Petitioners have not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied.Copy of order here. Press report here. Previous blogging here.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Bratz Mandamus Denied
The 9th Circuit, brief and to the point:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2011
(85)
-
►
December
(10)
- Walter Mercado Still Losing
- Just Another Skirmish or the War?
- Giving An Idea to Your Employer
- Beneficial Owners Don't Have Standing
- Zombie Department Stores Rise (as ugly t-shirts)
- Must All Trademark Owners be Joined?
- Who Owns the Mark Used by a Bunch of People?
- Bratz Copied, But Didn't Infringe
- When You Can Change the Name of the Registrant
- It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time
-
►
December
(10)
-
▼
2008
(95)
-
▼
August
(18)
- Bratz Post-Verdict Spinning
- Heavy Hitting in Las Vegas
- NY Times on Revival of Brands
- Aerotel Visits the United States
- Bratz Verdict!
- Steamboat Willie as Public Domain
- Hint from the Bratz Jury
- The NFL is One Entity - For Trademark Licensing, A...
- Goodwill for Sale
- EasyTrademark Licensing
- And Not Even a Passing Reference to Whitman's Choc...
- Penguin to Continue Publishing Steinbeck
- Bratz Mandamus Denied
- Fall River's Own Lizzie Borden
- Bratz Hobby
- "Heritage" Brands Revisited
- Tickler for Licensing IP
- Bratz Continues
-
▼
August
(18)
0 comments:
Post a Comment