Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A.

Ninth Circuit

Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A.

81 F.3d 169, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 20925, 1996 WL 134319

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A.. Read the opinion of the Court — 20 F.3d 987 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 25, 1996·No. 94-36064·Unpublished

Opinion

81 F.3d 169

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMERCIAL IBERICA DE EXCLUSIVAS DEPORTIVAS, S.A., a Spanish
corporation; S.A. De Distribuciones Internacionales, a
Spanish corporation; Carlos Rosal Bertrand; Lorenzo Rosal
Bertrand; Mario Loscos; F. Bertrand, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-36064.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 25, 1996.

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The judgment of the district court granting costs to defendants is AFFIRMED.

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

81 F.3d 169

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMERCIAL IBERICA DE EXCLUSIVAS DEPORTIVAS, S.A., a Spanish
corporation; S.A. De Distribuciones Internacionales, a
Spanish corporation; Carlos Rosal Bertrand; Lorenzo Rosal
Bertrand; Mario Loscos; F. Bertrand, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-36064.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 25, 1996.

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The judgment of the district court granting costs to defendants is AFFIRMED.

Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 81 F.3d 169, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 20925, 1996 WL 134319 (9th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

81 F.3d 169 (Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.