Avco Corp. v. Turn & Bank Holdings, LLC

Full title: AVCO CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, v. TURN AND BANK…

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 31, 2022

4:12-CV-01313 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2022)

Opinion

4:12-CV-01313

08-31-2022

AVCO CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, v. TURN AND BANK HOLDINGS, LLC, AND PRECISION AIRMOTIVE, LLC, Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. AVSTAR FUEL SYSTEMS, INC. Counterclaim Defendant.

Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge

ORDER

Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. TNB's motions in limine (Doc. 491) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

A. TNB's motion to exclude evidence related to the validity of the RSA Marks and evidence underlying Avco/AVStar's reasons for adopting “the RSA model designations in the 2009-2011-time

frame, the historic use of the model numbers by Avco and others, whether Avco/AVStar thought the designations were trademarks when adopted, the meaning of the model designations and similar information” is granted;

B. TNB's motion to exclude from the jury trial evidence related to actual confusion is granted, although Avco may present evidence that it had no intent to confuse or deceive when it adopted the RSA Marks; and

C. TNB's motion to exclude from the bench trial evidence related to actual confusion is denied.

2. Avco's motions in limine (Doc. 493) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

A. Avco's motion to exclude evidence of safety issues and lawsuits related to AVStar servos is granted;

B. Avco's motion to preclude evidence related to trademark lawsuits, bankruptcy proceedings, and products liability lawsuits is granted;

C. Avco's motion to exclude evidence of actual confusion is granted to the extent that such evidence shall be precluded from the jury trial, and evidence related to a mis-tagged servo shall be excluded from the bench trial. However, Avco's motion is denied as to other evidence of actual confusion that TNB may seek to present at the bench trial;

D. Avco's motion to exclude pleadings, orders, and the settlement agreement in the North Carolina Case is granted;

E. Avco's motion to preclude evidence of other trademark applications and registrations is granted; and

F. Avco's motion to exclude evidence of its continued use of the RSA Marks during the pendency of this case is denied.