Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01813/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01813-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brothers of the Wheel M.C. Executive Council, Inc.
Appellant
John Does 1-50

Gerald R. Mollohan
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1813

BROTHERS OF THE WHEEL M.C. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, INC., a West 

Virginia Corporation,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GERALD R. MOLLOHAN,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

JOHN DOES 1-50,

Defendant.

No. 14-1815

BROTHERS OF THE WHEEL M.C. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, INC., a West 

Virginia Corporation,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GERALD R. MOLLOHAN,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

JOHN DOES 1-50,

Defendant.

Appeal: 14-1813 Doc: 27 Filed: 07/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (2:11-cv-00104)

Submitted: April 24, 2015 Decided: July 2, 2015

Before SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard J. Lindroth, South Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Gerald R. Mollohan, Appellee/CrossAppellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1813 Doc: 27 Filed: 07/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cross-appeals, Plaintiff Brothers of 

the Wheel M.C. Executive Council, Inc. and Defendant Gerald R. 

Mollohan appeal the district court’s final judgment order in 

this trademark infringement case. On appeal, the parties raise 

numerous assignments of error. Having carefully reviewed the 

briefs, the record, and the relevant law, we conclude that each 

assignment of error is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brothers of 

the Wheel M.C. Exec. Council, Inc. v. Mollohan, No. 2:11-cv00104 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 19, 2014; Feb. 14, 2014; June 25, 2013; 

June 6, 2013; Nov. 14, 2012). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-1813 Doc: 27 Filed: 07/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3