Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sentry Pool v. Wave Tec Pools

August 6, 2008

SENTRY POOL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WAVE TEC POOLS, INC. DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDade United States District Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed on March 7, 2008. [Doc. 11.] Plaintiff filed a Response on March 24, 2008. [Doc. 15.] For the following reasons Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 29, 2003 Sentry Pool, Inc. ("Plaintiff") contracted to buy Riverpool units*fn1 from Wave Tec Pools, Inc..*fn2 (Doc. 1.) The contract was to last for one year or until a minimum of 100 Riverpool units were purchased, whichever occurred first. (Doc. 1.) The contract states in part:

Buyer hereby agrees that for the term of this contract, Buyer will not purchase pools substantially the same as the "Riverpool" unit or not duplicate or manufacture or outsource the manufacture of units similar to the "Riverpool" unit under terms of this agreement. (Doc.1-3, ¶ 1.)

The contract further discussed issues of intellectual property by including the following section:

Any and all trademarks which each of the Parties uses in connection with the "Riverpool" unit are and shall remain in exclusive property of Seller. (Doc. 1-3, ¶ 10.)

In 2007, nearly four years following the initial contract date, Plaintiff claims Defendants violated Plaintiff's intellectual property rights associated with the Riverpool unit. Specifically, Defendants allegedly violated Plaintiff's rights when they sent Plaintiff's print books and manufacturer cut sheets to one of Plaintiff's competitors. (Doc. 1.)

Plaintiff has now filed suit alleging breach of contract (Count I), violation of trade secrets (Count II), copyright infringement (Count III), interference with business relations (Count IV), interference with a prospective economic advantage (Count V), and patent infringement (Count VI and VII).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations must be accepted as true. Williams v. Ramos, 71 F.3d 1246, 1250 (7th Cir. 1995). Therefore, a complaint can only be dismissed if a plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts upon which relief can be granted. Travel All Over the World, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423, 1429-30 (7th Cir. 1996). However, the Court is not bound by a plaintiff's legal conclusions. Reed v. City of Chicago,77 F.3d 1049, 1051(7th Cir. 1996). The province of Rule 12(b)(6) motions is to question the availability of a legal formula justifying relief on the alleged facts, not to test or determine the facts themselves. Maple Lanes, Inc. v. Messer, 196 F.3d 823, 824-25 (7th Cir. 1999).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Breach of Contract

Defendants argue that the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, Wave Tech Pools, Inc., began on December 29, 2003 and expired on December 29, 2004. Defendants further argue that despite the parties ability to agree to extend the contract, no terms indicating an agreement or extension of the contract are mentioned in the Complaint. Specifically, Defendants argue that this claim should be dismissed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.