1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. PODS ENTERPRISES, INC. v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 

PODS ENTERPRISES, INC. v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Case No. 8:12-cv-01479-T-27MAP.

PODS ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

July 15, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Pods Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Cantine , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Jason M. Sobel , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Jonathan B. Sbar , Rocke, McLean & Sbar, PA, Joseph Diamante , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Michael A. Fernandez , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Raul Valles, Jr. , Rocke, McLean & Sbar, PA, Robert L. Rocke , Rocke, McLean & Sbar, PA & Vivian Luo , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

U-Haul International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leo R. Beus , Beus Gilbert, PLLC, R. Charles Henn, Jr. , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, William H. Brewster , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Dennis L. Wilson , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP & William P. Cassidy, Jr. , Johnson & Cassidy, P.A..

U-Haul International, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Leo R. Beus , Beus Gilbert, PLLC, R. Charles Henn, Jr. , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, William H. Brewster , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Dennis L. Wilson , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP & William P. Cassidy, Jr. , Johnson & Cassidy, P.A..

Pods Enterprises, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Charles E. Cantine , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Jason M. Sobel , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Jonathan B. Sbar , Rocke, McLean & Sbar, PA, Joseph Diamante , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Michael A. Fernandez , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Raul Valles, Jr. , Rocke, McLean & Sbar, PA, Robert L. Rocke , Rocke, McLean & Sbar, PA & Vivian Luo , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

ORDER

JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT in this trademark infringement and unfair competition case are Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 143), which Defendant opposes (Dkt. 194), and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 151), which Plaintiff opposes (Dkt. 199). Upon consideration, both motions (Dkts. 143, 151) are DENIED, as genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment.<...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases