The parties settled in early 1997, and memorialized their agreement in a Final Judgment and Permanent Consent Order Against Howard S. 111, PageID.1402 Filed 02/09/22 of 33Ĥ injunction, alleging that Howard Leight’s sales of earplugs under the registered “MAX” and “MAX-LITE” trademarks viol ated the Lanham Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and Michigan common law. (Id.) McKeon sued Howard Leight in 1995, and in 1996 moved for a preliminary Case 2:95-cv-76322-PDB-EAS ECF No. Leight began selling its own line of earplugs under the trademark “MAX” in 1986. to Reopen Case, PageID.11.) Defendant Howard S. BACKGROUND McKeon has sold its soft earplugs under the name “MACK’S” since the 1960’s. The Court DENIES Honeywell’s request for discovery. 110, Pl.’s Reply.)īecause the Court does not believe that oral argument will aid in its disposition of the motion, it is dispensing with oral argument, pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2).įor the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS McKeon’s Motion for an accounting, discovery by McKeon, disgorgement of Honeywell’s profits, and McKeon’s request for attorney fees and costs. 108, Def.’s Resp.) McKeon filed a Reply on January 24, 2021. 106, Pl.’s Mot.) On January 10, 2021, Hone ywell filed a Response in opposition. 111, PageID.1401 Filed 02/09/22 of 33ģ (3) requiring Honeywell to disgorge profits it received from its actual sales of its Max and Max-Lite earplugs in violation of the Consent Order (4) awarding McKeon attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing the 1997 Consent Order against Honeywell and (5) any other relief the Court finds just and equitable. Now before the Court is Plaintiff McKeon’s Motion for an Accounting, and Reimbursement for Attorney Fees and Costs: (1) requiring Defendant Honeywell to account for its retail sales and profits (2) providing limited discovery to McKeon Case 2:95-cv-76322-PDB-EAS ECF No. 101, Mandate), and thereafter this Court dissolved the stay of its NovemOpinion and Order, on November 2, 2021. The Sixth Circuit’s mandate was issued on Novem(ECF No. On October 8, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court’s Opinion and Orde r granting McKeon’s Motion to Reopen the Case, and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings, including dissolution of the stay. 95, Order Granting Honeywell’s Motion to Stay.) On January 28, 2021, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting Defendant Honeywell’s motion to stay th e Court’s NovemOpinion and Order pending appeal, and subject to posting a $500,000.00 supersedeas bond. Leight & Associates, Inc., cease selling Max and Max-Lite earplugs to and through the Retail Market, consisting of all retail establishments including the Drug and Grocery Market, sporting goods stores, and retail mass merchandisers, including online retail mass merchandisers such as and. 111, PageID.1400 Filed 02/09/22 of 33Ģ Defendant Honeywell, successor-in-interest to Howard S.

78, Opinion and Order Granting McKeon’s Motion to Reopen.) The Court ordered that: Case 2:95-cv-76322-PDB-EAS ECF No. (Honeywell), successor-in-interest to Howard S. 106) On November 25, 2020, this Court issued an Opinion and Order, adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation, and granting Plaintiff McKeon Products Inc.’s (McKeon) Motion to Reopen Case and Enforce the Court’s FebruFinal Judgment and Permanent Consent Order Against Honeywell Safety Products, USA, Inc.

VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S CONSENT ORDER ENTEREDįEBRUARY 11, 1997, AND (2) FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS (ECF NO. McKEON PRODUCTS, INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF DEFENDANT HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.’S VIOLATIVE RETAIL SALES AND PROFITS IN B o r m a n United States District Judge HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC., successor-in-interest to HOWARD S. SOUTHERN DIVISION MCKEON PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, Case No. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Judicial consent 1994 at amazon