Hornady Manufacturing v. Double Tap Ammunition

Filing 274

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERdenying 156 Defendants Fourth Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/16/13. (ss)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

HORNADY MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC., a Nebraska Corporation,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S
FOURTH MOTION IN LIMINE

vs.

DOUBLETAP, INC., a Utah Corporation,

Case No. 2:11-CV-18 TS

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Fourth Motion in Limine.1 Defendant
moves in limine to preclude Plaintiff from referring to Defendant by anything other than its
correct and legal name, Doubletap, Inc., or for short, Doubletap.
In its Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the
Court addressed the very concern raised by Defendant. The Court noted that: “In a misguided
effort to support its trademark infringement claims, Hornady has insisted throughout the course
of this litigation to refer to Doubletap as ‘Double Tap,’ thereby providing more emphasis on the

1

Docket No. 156.
1

‘tap’ section of Doubletap’s name—the section of Doubletap’s name for which Hornady has
obtained a trade mark.”2
In its opposition to this Motion, Plaintiff concedes that “Defendant’s legal entity name
will not be a disputed fact at trial.”3 Nevertheless, Plaintiff asserts that it should be allowed to
admit evidence of Defendant’s use of its Doubletap trade mark in commerce, including uses that
include a space between “Double” and “tap,” and the inclusion of the word ammunition. The
Court will allow such evidences to the extent they represent product packaging and other
evidence of Defendant’s actual use of the “tap” mark.
That being said, the Court warns Plaintiff against engaging in any future tactics that could
be read as supporting its trademark infringement claims by improperly naming the Defendant.
As such, the Court will allow Defendant to re-raise this objection to specific statements or
evidence Plaintiff seeks to admit at trial. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Fourth Motion in Limine (Docket No. 156) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED April 16, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

2

Docket No. 256, at 7.

3

Docket No. 192, at 2.
2