Facebook sued Teachbook.com LLC alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and related claims, asserting that Teachbook's "TEACHBOOK" mark for a teacher-focused social networking site infringed Facebook's famous "FACEBOOK" mark and created a false affiliation. Teachbook moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and submitted over 300 pages of additional exhibits. The court denied the motion in full, finding that Facebook's complaint adequately alleged the elements of each claim—including mark similarity, likelihood of confusion, and dilution through impairment of distinctiveness—while holding that Teachbook's extra materials were not properly considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting it to summary judgment.
The case involved Coleman Cable seeking to recover insurance proceeds for the theft of over 900,000 pounds of copper wire from its Florida facility under separate policies from Federal Insurance (covering employee theft) and Travelers Indemnity (covering non-employee theft). Both insurers moved for summary judgment on whether the loss was covered and the amount payable. The court denied Federal's motion, finding disputed facts regarding potential employee involvement and the adequacy of proof for a covered loss. The court granted Travelers' motion, concluding that policy exclusions for inventory shortages without physical evidence or for employee acts barred coverage for the claimed loss.
Playboy Enterprises sued Smartitan, Eltex, and George Chan for breach of a product license agreement allowing use of Playboy trademarks in Japan, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference, alleging unauthorized sales, late reports, and unpaid royalties exceeding $300,000. The court dismissed the tortious interference claim against Chan for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied the motions to dismiss the contract and unjust enrichment claims against Smartitan and Eltex. The reasoning was that the companies had sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois through the contract negotiated and performed with Playboy's Chicago-based operations, ongoing communications, royalty payments, and evidence that Eltex may be a successor or alter ego of Smartitan.
The case involves a contract dispute between Citadel Group Limited, a real estate developer, and Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) over an agreement to develop a medical office building in Arkansas through a lease-back arrangement. Citadel sued for lost profits under Count II of its amended complaint, alleging WRMC breached the agreement after initial negotiations and an Authorization to Proceed. The court granted WRMC's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that no enforceable contract existed for Citadel's claimed development fee because the proposed terms were not sufficiently definite. The reasoning centered on the fact that key elements like project costs, lease rates, and building size remained contingent on future approvals and market conditions, rendering the formula for damages too uncertain to support a lost profits claim under contract law.
The case involved plaintiff Dorothy Davis suing Wells Fargo Bank and Litton Loan Servicing under the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the defendants discriminatorily continued to demand payment on her mortgage and pursued foreclosure despite knowing the original lender had defrauded her in the 1999 loan transaction. The court first struck several of Davis's supporting affidavits for failing to meet procedural requirements under Rule 56. On the merits, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied Davis's cross-motion, reasoning that the defendants did not originate the loan, there was no evidence they were aware of Davis's race during relevant actions, and she failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination or disparate impact under the FHA. The opinion emphasized that prior state court rulings had not invalidated the mortgage or imposed liability on the defendants.
This case involves a pro se plaintiff, Louise Davenport, who is homeless and indigent, seeking to file a lawsuit without paying fees against the City of Chicago and police officials for alleged constitutional violations, ADA breaches, and torts stemming from her 2007 arrest for trespassing and the subsequent loss of her personal belongings. The court found her indigent and granted the in forma pauperis application. However, it dismissed multiple claims, including those for denial of access to the courts and certain ADA and tort claims, because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state plausible claims for relief under the applicable legal standards.
