 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
DEF ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HARVARD BIOSCIENCE PARAGRAPH PLAINTIFFS HARVARD APPARATUS HARVARD BIOSCIENCE DENIES DEFENDANT ALLEGATIONS HARVARD APPARATUS COMPANY MEDICAL SCHOOL HARVARD BIOSCIENCE REPEATS SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE ALLEGE PUBLICITY STATES DISTRICT COURT PRESIDENT COMPLAINT FELLOWS MARK REASONS BUSINESSES HARVARD COLLEGE DAMAGE MASSACHUSETTS PUMPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT SUCCESSOR PURCHASE HARVARD BIOSCIENCE INTENDS WEBSITE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASS&#~SE~~S c,,,
' *" ,L/ j ! , bi
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF )
HARVARD COLLEGE, >
Plaintiff 1
> CA. NO. OOCV12625
V.
HARVARD BIOSCIENCE, INC. )
Defendant >
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant, Harvard Bioscience, Inc. ("Harvard Bioscience) answers the
Complaint of Plaintiff ("The University") as follows:
1. No answer required.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. No answer required.
5. No answer required.
6. No answer required.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted.
11. No answer is required as the paragraph fails to state any facts.
12. No answer is required as this paragraph states conclusions of law,
13. No answer is required as this paragraph states conclusions of law.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HARVARD BIOSCIENCE ACTS HARVARD MARK MASSACHUSETTS LAW COURT HARVARD UNIVERSITY COMMONWEALTH FELLOWS VIOLATION PRESIDENT HARVARD COLLEGE PLAINTIFF UNFAIR GOODS DEFENDANT FEDERAL TRADEMARK PRINCIPALPLACE COMPETITION LANHAM ACT BUSINESS SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES COMPLAINT JURISDICTION UNLAWFUL ACTS REPUTATION DISTINCTIVE QUALITY DILUTION CAMBRIDGE |
IN THE UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
& -,.mir' .- -
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF
HARVARD COLLEGE,
Plaintiff,
V.
HARVARD BIOSCIENCE, INC.,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE ("Harvard
University" or "Harvard"), for its complaint against Defendant HARVARD BIOSCIENCE, INC.
("Harvard Bioscience"), states as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action by Harvard University for federal trademark infringement, unfair
competition, dilution and cybersquatting in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C $6 1114,
1125(a), 1125(c), and 1125(d), and related violations of the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
PARTIES
2. Harvard is a charitable corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its principal place of business at Massachusetts Hall,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02 138.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Harvard Bioscience, is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of
I) e
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HARVARD APPARATUS BIOSCIENCE MARK COURT FONT MEDICAL RESEARCH BUSINESS PRESIDENT MOTION INFRINGEMENT COMPETITION CRIMSON PORTER MARKET PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT SALES OBJECTION MEDICAL SCHOOL RESEARCH EQUIPMENT DELAY PREJUDICE PITTSBURGH CHAMPION PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS SINGULAR DISPLAY DOCTRINE LACHES ELLIOT |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-CV-12625RGS
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE *k.
v.
HARVARD BIOSCIENCE, INC.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
May 6,2002
STEARNS, D.J.
On December 26,2000, Harvard University brought this lawsuit against defendant
Harvard Bioscience (Bioscience) complaining that the latter's use of the term "Harvard" in
various media, either alone or in the tandem combinations "Harvard Bioscience," `Harvard
Apparatus," and "Harvard Pump," among others, violated the Lanham Act's prohibitions
against trade mark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and cybersquatting. See 15
U.S.C. 55 1114(l), 1125(a), 1125(c), and 1125(d).' On April 6, 2001, the court heard
argument on Harvard University's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Bioscience
from any further use of the "Harvard" mark in sales catalogs and promotional materials.
The court allowed the motion in part, and enjoined Bioscience from using the "Harvard"
mark, singularly or in combination with other words, in a crimson or red font similar
`Harvard Uni e
v rsity also alleges state law claims of
violation of Chapter 93A.
1
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
