In a contract case arising from parties’ efforts to resolve a dispute over the use of similar trademarks in their respective clothing lines, a magistrate judge’s rulings are affirmed in part where both parties intended an informal document to be a binding contract and no reasonable jury could decide otherwise, and the terms of such document were sufficiently definite to warrant enforcement. However, the case is remanded as the terms agreed to by the parties with respect to certain clauses were not sufficiently unambiguous to permit judicial interpretation of the contract.
Read Am. Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott Ltd., No. 08-4807
Appellate Information
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (No. 06-cv-00607)District Judge: Honorable A,y Reynolds Hay
Opinion Filed September 11, 2009
Judges
Before: Fuentes, Jordan, and Nygaard, Circuit Judges Opinion by: Fuentes, Circuit Judge
Counsel
Counsel for Appellant: Emily J. Barnhart, Dennis P. McCooe, Timothy D. Pescsenye, Laurence S. Shtasel, James T. Smith, Marc E. Weitzman, Susan B. Flohr, Charles R. Wolfe, Robert L. Byer, Susan G. Schwochau,
Counsel for Appellee: Clay P. Hughes, Cynthia E. Kernick, Walter T. McGough, Jr., Kirsten R. Rydstrom, Richard T. Ting, Colin E. Wrabley, Theodore R. Remaklus.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
