Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207757/Georgia-Pacific-Consumer-v-von-Drehle-Corporation-4th-Cir-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:42:56+00:00

Document:
the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Little Rock, Arkansas, for Appellee.
contributory trademark infringement. Georgia Pacific Consumer Prods., LP v. Von Drehle Corp., 618 F.3d 441 (4th Cir.
vacated in the earlier appeal.
earlier had rejected. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods. LP v.
Von Drehle Corp., 856 F. Supp. 2d 750 (E.D.N.C. 2012).
alternatively considering the preclusion defenses sua sponte.
our previous adjudication of this case. See 618 F.3d at 444-48.
to be used in the GP dispensers. Id. at 444-47.
a practice known in the industry as "stuffing." Id. at 447-48.
competition in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
court) filed in September 2008 against Myers Supply, Inc.
the contributory trademark infringement claim. 645 F. Supp.
claims are at issue in the present appeal.
2009. See Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prod. LP v. Myers Supply, Inc., No. 6:08cv6086, 2009 WL 2192721 (W.D. Ark.
present matter attended the Myers bench trial, and immediately thereafter was made aware of the Arkansas courts judgment.
The mandate of this Court was issued on September 16, 2010.
preclusion" in this opinion, courts often refer to such defenses as "res judicata" and "collateral estoppel," respectively.
in Myers found that the relevant focus for the likelihood of confusion analysis was the business purchasers of the paper towels, rather than the restroom patrons who actually used them. 2009 WL 2192721, at *6.
no significant time has passed is unpersuasive.
based on the Arkansas decision [in Myers].
omitted). von Drehle later filed a motion asking that the district court reconsider its decision, which the court also denied.
did not rule on von Drehles motions before trial.
Myers did not have preclusive effect with respect to the Superior case.
which the paper towels were used, rendered preclusion inapplicable.
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods. LP v. Superior Janitor Supply, Inc., No.
1:09cv323, 2011 WL 4002563, at *3-4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 8, 2011).
judgment in accordance with the jury verdict.
to supplement its answer to include the preclusion defenses.
Georgia-Pacific. 856 F. Supp. 2d at 757.
would consider the preclusion defenses sua sponte. Id.
"arbitrary manner" or relies on an erroneous principle of law.
United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012).
decision having the preclusive effect"); Home Depot, Inc. v.
Evans v. Syracuse City Sch. Dist., 704 F.2d 44, 47 (2d Cir.
is obliged to plead [it] at the earliest possible moment.") (citation omitted).
704 F.2d at 47; Home Depot, 773 F.2d at 620 n.4.
even if it is still appealable").
November 2010 seeking leave to amend its pleadings.
failed to argue that the Myers decision should be dispositive of the outcome of Georgia-Pacifics claims against von Drehle.
District of Ohio" in the Four-U case.
856 F. Supp. 2d at 757 (emphasis added).
of the trademark claim, as that court did not consider GeorgiaPacifics evidence in relation to the "likelihood of confusion"
application of the issue preclusion doctrine relying on Myers.
not provide a separate basis for timely assertion of the preclusion defenses.
was informed by the Four-U decision.
opportunity to raise a defense" arose).
Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 655 (4th Cir.
wasted judicial resources, rather than sparing them. Cf. id.
circumstances justifying the district courts sua sponte action.
because they were not raised in the district court." Id. (emphasis added).
jury verdict and in awarding judgment in favor of von Drehle.
regarding the merits of the preclusion defenses.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.