• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
4 results

The Fork Corner SAS v. Opinel SAS et al

Docket 1:23-cv-16187, Illinois Northern District Court (Nov. 21, 2023)
the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras, presiding
Trademark
DivisionChicago
FlagsKIM
Demand$75,000,000
Cause15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Case Type840 Trademark
Tags840 Trademark, 840 Trademark
Plaintiff The Fork Corner SAS
Defendant Opinel SAS
Defendant Opinel USA Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 60 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 3/5/2025

Document The Fork Corner SAS v. Opinel SAS et al, 1:23-cv-16187, No. 60 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 5, 2025)
On September 25, 2023, TFC received a message from Defendants stating: “You are selling our products way under MAP… Please respond with an email address so that our EU legal team can be in touch with you.” Dkt. # 27, ¶ 61.
In another correspondence dated October 10, 2023, Defendants wrote to TFC stating: “Opinel SAS tried to contact you via mail earlier this year to inform you that you are not authorized to sell Opinel products outside of the European Union.
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court has discretion to dismiss a case over which it normally has jurisdiction if doing so “best serves the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” GoldenTree Asset Mgmt.
Also, “[w]hile courts ordinarily accord a plaintiff’s choice of forum strong deference, this is not the case where, as here, the plaintiff is foreign.” Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Soc.
As Defendants point out, this issue is easily resolved since TFC already sued Opinel SAS in France in a case based on the same factual assertions underlying this lawsuit.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 55 MEMORANDUM Opinion Signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 2/26/2025

Document The Fork Corner SAS v. Opinel SAS et al, 1:23-cv-16187, No. 55 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 26, 2025)
On September 25, 2023, TFC received a message from Defendants stating: “You are selling our products way under MAP… Please respond with an email address so that our EU legal team can be in touch with you.” Dkt. # 27, ¶ 61.
In another correspondence dated October 10, 2023, Defendants wrote to TFC stating: “Opinel SAS tried to contact you via mail earlier this year to inform you that you are not authorized to sell Opinel products outside of the European Union.
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court has discretion to dismiss a case over which it normally has jurisdiction if doing so “best serves the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” GoldenTree Asset Mgmt.
Also, “[w]hile courts ordinarily accord a plaintiff’s choice of forum strong deference, this is not the case where, as here, the plaintiff is foreign.” Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Soc.
As Defendants point out, this issue is easily resolved since TFC already sued Opinel SAS in France in a case based on the same factual assertions underlying this lawsuit.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 17 MOTION by Defendants Alexandre Delecroix, Opinel SAS, Opinel USA Inc. for extension of time ...

Document The Fork Corner SAS v. Opinel SAS et al, 1:23-cv-16187, No. 17 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 16, 2024)
Motion to Extend Time
Defendants Opinel SAS, Opinel USA, Inc., and Alexandre Delecroix, by their undersigned counsel and with the agreement of Plaintiff’s counsel, move for a one-week extension of time to respond to the Complaint in this action.
If Defendants file motions to dismiss, Defendants request the Court also to extend the dates for responses and replies by one week.
On December 14, 2023, the Court ordered that Defendants shall answer the complaint or otherwise plead by January 23, 2024, and that if Defendants file any motions to dismiss, responses will be due by February 13, 2024, and replies will be due by February 27, 2024.
Defendants make this request for an extension of time because the wife of Defendants’ undersigned counsel is scheduled for surgery on January 17, 2024, and undersigned counsel will be away from work for the remainder of the week, until approximately Monday, January 22, 2024.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to enter an order extending the time for Defendants to respond to the complaint by one week, until January 30, 2024, and providing that if any motions to dismiss are filed, responses shall be filed by February 20, 2024, and replies shall be filed by March 5, 2024.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search