PLIXER INTERNATIONAL INC v. SCRUTINIZER GMBH

Filing 92

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56 By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (clp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PLIXER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
PLAINTIFF
V.

SCRUTINIZER GMBH,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-578-DBH

REPORT OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE UNDER LOCAL RULE 56
A Local Rule 56 pre-filing conference was held on November 25, 2019.
The plaintiff has asserted a trademark infringement claim under the
federal trademark statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1111, et seq., alleging that the defendant
has infringed the plaintiff’s rights to the SCRUTINIZER mark it uses in
connection with its computer services and software. The plaintiff has agreed to
withdraw its dilution claim, which was Count II of its amended complaint. Pl.’s
Pre-Filing Conf. Mem. at 2 (ECF No. 90).
The defendant will move for summary judgment on the remaining
trademark infringement claim. The parties agree that the plaintiff bears the
burden of proof on its claim and that the eight Pignons factors apply in
determining the likelihood of confusion.

See Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de

Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 487 (1st Cir. 1981). The parties believe
that they can stipulate to many of the underlying facts, but they disagree on the
likelihood of confusion.

The following deadlines and page limits were established by agreement:
By December 3, 2019, both parties shall agree to any stipulated
facts.
By December 6, 2019, the defendant shall file its motion for
summary judgment. The memorandum shall not exceed 30 pages.
By January 24, 2020, the plaintiff shall file its opposition, not to
exceed 30 pages.
By February 7, 2020, the defendant shall file its reply, not to exceed
seven pages.
If the plaintiff believes it needs to file a sur-reply, it may move for leave to
do so following submission of the defendant’s reply.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2