Hapco Farms, Inc. v. Idaho Potato Commission

Second Circuit

Hapco Farms, Inc. v. Idaho Potato Commission

238 F.3d 468, 57 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1728, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 2001

Docket2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 238 F.3d 468 (Hapco Farms, Inc. v. Idaho Potato Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hapco Farms, Inc. v. Idaho Potato Commission, 238 F.3d 468, 57 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1728, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Hapco Farms, Inc. (“Hapco”), appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, Judge, dismissing its complaint against defendant Idaho Potato Commission (“IPC”) seeking a declaration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064 that certain federally registered certification marks and trademarks owned by IPC should be canceled, as well as damages based on IPC’s alleged use of those marks to violate federal antitrust laws. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that IPC is an agency of the State of Idaho, funded by the State, and is thus entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. We reject Hapco’s challenge to that ruling. Most of the factors set out in Mancuso v. New York State Thruway Authority, 86 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 992, 117 S.Ct. 481, 136 L.Ed.2d 375 (1996), in particular the first, second, fourth, and sixth, weigh in favor of the conclusion that IPC is a state agency. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Brieant’s opinion, reported at 95 F.Supp.2d 150 (2000)

We have considered all of Hapco’s contentions on this appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Hapco Farms, Inc. (“Hapco”), appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, Judge, dismissing its complaint against defendant Idaho Potato Commission (“IPC”) seeking a declaration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064 that certain federally registered certification marks and trademarks owned by IPC should be canceled, as well as damages based on IPC’s alleged use of those marks to violate federal antitrust laws. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that IPC is an agency of the State of Idaho, funded by the State, and is thus entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. We reject Hapco’s challenge to that ruling. Most of the factors set out in Mancuso v. New York State Thruway Authority, 86 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 992, 117 S.Ct. 481, 136 L.Ed.2d 375 (1996), in particular the first, second, fourth, and sixth, weigh in favor of the conclusion that IPC is a state agency. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Brieant’s opinion, reported at 95 F.Supp.2d 150 (2000)

We have considered all of Hapco’s contentions on this appeal and have found in them no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 F.3d 468, 57 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1728, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hapco-farms-inc-v-idaho-potato-commission-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack