Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03752/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03752-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEVI STRAUSS & COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH TRADING

COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-03752 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON OCTOBER 26, 2007, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and

opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies

available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED

to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D.

Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain

their reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively grants Levi Strauss & Company’s motion to disqualify. Each

party shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions:

Case 3:07-cv-03752-JSW Document 37 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

1. Given that this case is in the early stages of the litigation, indeed the Court has

not held the initial case management conference, and given that proceedings in

the United States Patent and Trademark Office are stayed, what is Abercrombie

& Fitch’s best argument that it has suffered the type of extreme prejudice that

would warrant a finding that Levi Strauss & Company’s motion to disqualify

should be denied on the basis of laches? What evidence is in the record in

support of such a finding?

2. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: October 23, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03752-JSW Document 37 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 2