About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations 1 (July 2017 through April 2018)

handle is hein.ali/retuc0505 and id is 1 raw text is: UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D CHAPTER 1. THE FREEDOM TO COMPETE § 1. General Principles S.D.Iowa, 2017. Cit. and quot. in disc.; com. (g) cit. and quot. in disc. Local exchange carrier brought an action against long-distance carriers, alleging that defendants failed to pay billed switched-access charges for interstate services arising from conference-calling service arrangement; long-distance carriers counterclaimed, asserting that the arrangements, including revenue sharing, were per se illegal and amounted to traffic pumping. This court granted in part plaintiff s motion to dismiss defendants' unfair-competition counterclaim, holding that defendants failed to state a claim for unfair competition, and denied plaintiff s motion to dismiss with respect to the fraudulent-concealment and tortious- interference counterclaims. The court discussed plaintiff s reliance on the definition of unfair competition articulated in Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1 and noted that Iowa law was not modeled on this section. Aventure Communications Technology, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., 224 F.Supp.3d 706, 771-773. E.D.Pa.2017. Cit. in sup.; subsec. (a) and com. (g) quot. in sup. Seller of medical devices brought an unfair-competition claim against competitor, alleging, among other things, that competitor actively recruited seller's employees and converted seller's customers by tortiously interfering with seller's agreements with customers and exploiting seller's employees' access to seller's confidential information. This court denied in part competitor's motion to dismiss, holding that seller's allegations were sufficient to state a claim for unfair competition under Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1. The court noted that, as a general matter, if the means of competition were otherwise tortious with respect to the injured party, they would also ordinarily constitute an unfair method of competition. DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., 259 F.Supp.3d 225, 246. E.D.Pa.2016. Quot. in ftn., cit. in case quot. in ftn. Individual taxicab drivers and advocacy organization for taxicab companies filed claims for, among other things, unfair competition and tortious interference with contractual relations against transportation-network company, alleging that defendant wrongfully recruited plaintiffs' taxicab drivers and used money it gained from its illegal operation in an attempt to drive plaintiffs from the marketplace. This court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, holding, inter alia, that plaintiffs' allegations that defendant's operation was in violation of state law or municipal regulations could not support a private cause of action for unfair competition or tortious interference. The court explained that the scope of a common-law claim of unfair competition was coextensive with the definition set forth under Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1. Philadelphia Taxi Association, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 218 F.Supp.3d 389, 394. CHAPTER 3. THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.