Monster Energy Company v. Beastup LLC
This text of Monster Energy Company v. Beastup LLC (Monster Energy Company v. Beastup LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Monster Energy Company, No. 2:17-cv-01605-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Beastup LLC, 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Monster Energy Company moves in /imine for an order prohibiting defendant 18 | Beastup LLC from offering at trial any evidence or argument that Monster is a “trademark bully” 19 | and from using other similar disparaging labels. See generally Mot., ECF No. 70; Mem., 20 | ECF No. 71. The matter is fully briefed. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 74; Reply, ECF No. 76. 21 | As discussed at the status conference on December 2, 2021, the motion is granted without 22 | prejudice to the use of such evidence or arguments in a post-trial motion for attorneys’ fees. 23 | See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1171 (W.D. Wash. 24 | 2010) (awarding fees in response to motion raising similar arguments), aff'd, 636 F.3d 501, 25 | 510-11 (9th Cir. 2011). This order resolves ECF No. 70. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 | DATED: December 2, 2021.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Monster Energy Company v. Beastup LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monster-energy-company-v-beastup-llc-caed-2021.