Allfast Fastening Systems v. Briles Rivet Corp.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 56(f) MOTION

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment came on regularly for hearing on April 7, 1998. Upon careful consideration of the papers submitted and oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs motion. The Court also DENIES defendants’ Rule 56(f) motion.

This case arises from a dispute between two rivet manufacturers, one of whom holds a patent. On November 7, 1997, plaintiff Allfast Fastening Systems (“Allfast”) filed the currently-operative First Amended Complaint (“1AC”). The 1AC seeks declaratory judgment of (1) patent invalidity and unen-forceability and (2) trademark invalidity and unenforceability against defendants Briles Rivet Corporation and Franklin Briles (collectively “Briles”). On March 31, 1998, the parties filed a Stipulation dismissing plaintiffs first claim for relief (patent invalidity). Currently before this Court is Allfast’s motion for summary judgment, solely as to the second claim.

Allfast’s motion as to trade dress is brought on the grounds that the rivet configuration for which Briles seeks trade dress…