Roger Cleveland Golf Company Inc v. Prince et al
Filing
137
REPLY to Response to Motion re 127 MOTION for Attorney Fees Response filed by Roger Cleveland Golf Company Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Jury Trial Discussions excerpt, # 2 Exhibit B - Verdict Form, # 3 Exhibit C - 9.29.10 ltr & Amended Notices of Depos to Doolittle, # 4 Exhibit D - Rolex v. Brown, # 5 Exhibit E - Chanel v. French, # 6 Exhibit F - Rolex v. Jones, # 7 Exhibit G - Lorillard Tobacco v. S&M Central Serv. Corp., # 8 Exhibit H - Employers Council v. Feltman, # 9 Exhibit I - Rodgers v. Anderson, # 10 Exhibit J - Silhouette v. Chakhbazian)(McElwaine, John)
Exhibit A
1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
ROGER CLEVELAND GOLF
COMPANY, INC.,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
VERSUS
)
)
)
CHRISTOPHER PRINCE, PRINCE
)
DISTRIBUTION, LLC, and
)
BRIGHT BUILDERS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
----------------------------)
C/A No. 2:09-2119-MBS
Columbia, SC
March 8 & 9, 2011
12
13
14
EXCERPTS OF JURY TRIAL
DISCUSSIONS RE JURY CHARGES AND MOTIONS
15
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARGARET B. SEYMOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a jury.
16
17
Appearances:
18
19
For the Plaintiff:
JEFFREY S. PATTERSON, ESQ.
JOHN C. MCELWAINE, ESQ.
151 Meeting Street, Sixth Floor
Charleston, SC 29401
For Defendant Prince:
CHRISTOPHER D. LIZZI, ESQ.
36 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
For Defendant Bright
Builders:
PAUL J. DOOLITTLE, ESQ.
DOUGLAS M. FRASER, ESQ.
P.O. Box 2579
Charleston, SC 29401
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gary N. Smith, CM
Columbia, SC
49
1
And number 12 now is removed?
2
THE COURT:
I think -- is that the claim that was
3
withdrawn?
4
is that still an issue?
5
Unfair competition and false designation of origin,
MR. PATTERSON:
You had actually asked us if we
6
withdrew our unfair competition claim under the South Carolina
7
common law, which I said yes.
8
competition under federal law, the Lanham Act, which I think
9
it's -- you know, the counterfeiting conduct we talked about is
10
unfair competition, but we didn't actually withdraw that claim.
11
12
THE COURT:
This actually is unfair
So, are there separate damages for this
or is there a separate verdict on this particular issue --
13
MR. PATTERSON:
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. PATTERSON:
No --
-- or is it part of the Lanham Act claim?
The way you have done the verdict
16
form or the way we did it, it would include it, because it
17
says, "trademark counterfeiting and infringement in violation
18
of the Lanham Act."
19
violation of the Lanham Act.
This would just be another type of
20
THE COURT:
So do we need instruction number 12?
21
MR. PATTERSON:
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. DOOLITTLE:
No.
Okay.
So we are going to delete that?
Yes, that would be agreeable with
24
Bright Builders, and we have no objections to the remaining
25
jury instructions.
Gary N. Smith, CM
Columbia, SC
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?