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

Ronald Coleman

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.

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, Dhillon Law Group, Inc | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ronald Coleman

Dhillon Law Group, Inc on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.