Coherent Inc v. Coherent Technologie

Court

District Court, D. Colorado (D. Colo.)
Official Court Website →

Assigned judge

Alfred A. Arraj · 265 cases in index

Docket number

1:89-cv-00952

Cause

28:1338 Trademark Infringement
28 U.S.C. § 1338 — Patent, copyright & trademark jurisdiction

Nature of suit

840 Trademark
Infringement or dilution of a trademark under the Lanham Act.

Jurisdiction

Federal Question

Jury demand

None

Date filed

05/31/1989

Date terminated

05/02/1990

1,423 Trademark cases in this court are indexed here.

Parties

• plaintiff · Coherent, Inc Photography & Optical Equipment · 20 cases
• defendant · Coherent Technologie

Part of a Larger Litigation Pattern

This is one of 2 Trademark cases in our index naming Coherent Technologie — a possible mass-tort or coordinated-litigation cluster.

About Trademark Lawsuits

Trademark lawsuits allege infringement or dilution of a brand name, logo, or other mark under the Lanham Act — typically claims that one party's use is likely to confuse consumers about the source of goods or services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Coherent Inc v. Coherent Technologie?

Coherent Inc v. Coherent Technologie is a federal trademark lawsuit filed on 05/31/1989 in the District Court, D. Colorado. The case was terminated on 05/02/1990. Trademark lawsuits allege infringement or dilution of a brand name, logo, or other mark under the Lanham Act — typically claims that one party's use is likely to confuse consumers about the source of goods or services.

What type of case is this?

It is classified as “Trademark” under the federal nature-of-suit system. Trademark lawsuits allege infringement or dilution of a brand name, logo, or other mark under the Lanham Act — typically claims that one party's use is likely to confuse consumers about the source of goods or services.

What court is the case in?

The case is in the District Court, D. Colorado, docket number 1:89-cv-00952.

When was the case filed?

Coherent Inc v. Coherent Technologie was filed on 05/31/1989. It was terminated on 05/02/1990.

What law is the case brought under?

The docket lists the cause as 28 U.S.C. § 1338 — Patent, copyright & trademark jurisdiction.