Rapaport v. Idex Online, Ltd.

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to IDEX's Motion to Amend and Supplement the Counterclaims and to Compel Production


Plaintiffs (collectively “Rapaport”) submitted this brief in opposition to the motions of defendants-counterclaimants (collectively “IDEX”) to amend and supplement their counterclaims and to compel additional document production.

This case fundamentally is based on IDEX’s infringement and misuse of Rapaport’s registered INDEX® trademark and its valuable proprietary diamond pricing data. The last pleading was filed two years ago. Fact discovery closed nearly a year ago and the Court has already denied two IDEX requests to reopen discovery. The most recent scheduling order set a date for the filing of dispositive motions in March 2008. That last deadline was, on IDEX’s application, lifted by the Court to allow IDEX time for belated, so-called “expert discovery.”

That “expert discovery” resulted in two dubious achievements: One, the submission of an IDEX expert report that amounted to a paid endorsement of yet another application by IDEX for yet more discovery. And two, this motion to amend the pleadings, which attempts to bootstrap these “expert” speculations into a basis to insert, as amended counterclaims, new antitrust claims styled, contrary to all precedent, as claims for “unfair competition.” As if this were not enough, IDEX also seeks to introduce new trademark counterclaims, objectively unrelated to any aspect of this case that has been sub judice since 2003, based on alleged acts by Rapaport claimed to have taken place months earlier, and premised on the existence of an alleged “trademark” in the plain English phrase “guaranteed diamond transactions.” This is a phrase that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already recognized, in declining three separate applications for registration by IDEX, cannot possibly be a trademark.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

Reference Info:Legal Memoranda: Motion Addressed to Pleadings | Federal, 2nd Circuit, New York | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ronald Coleman, Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.