N.D. Illinois· 9/4/2007

GEISHA, LLC v. Tuccillo

Citations

525 F. Supp. 2d 1002
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65348
2007 WL 2608558

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that a trademark dispute was not ripe because “the allegedly infringing activity in this case . . . was far from imminent when this action was filed, and may never happen at all”
explaining that the DJA’s “actual controversy requirement is equivalent to Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement and thus incorporates Article III doctrines of ripeness and standing” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because “no ‘actual controversy’ exist[ed] in th[e] case to support the exercise of jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act”
“[T]his case reverses the roles of the parties in a typical, ‘defensive’ declaratory judgment action because the putative owner of the intellectual property [] is acting ‘offensively’ by suing a potential future infringer.”
“[T]he sole requirement for jurisdiction under the [Declaratory Judgment Act] is that the conflict be real and immediate, i.e., that there be a true, actual controversy required by the Act.” (internal quotations marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.