On September 16, 1994, Max Factor and Noxell filed motions for default judgments based on Artmatic's failure to answer their counterclaims. On July 15, 1994, Max Factor and *853 Noxell answered the complaint and counter-claimed for similar relief. On June 22, 1994, Maybelline answered the complaint and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that its products were non-infringing and that the patents in suit were invalid. A stipulation and order dated Jextended the time for defendants Max Factor and Noxell to answer to July 16, 1994. On April 18, 1994, Artmatic filed a complaint against Max Factor, Noxell, Maybelline, and others alleging patent infringement of a design for a cosmetics compact. For purposes of these motions, the relevant facts are as follows. This is a multi-party patent infringement suit. For the reasons below, Artmatic's motion to modify the default judgments is denied and Maybelline's motion for summary judgment is denied. ("Maybelline") for summary judgment based on the collateral estoppel effect of the default judgments secured by Max Factor and Noxell. This multi-defendant action for patent infringement is before the Court on two motions: (1) a motion by plaintiffs Artmatic USA Cosmetics and Arthur Matney ("Artmatic") to modify the default judgment entered against them on Octoby eliminating a declaration of patent invalidity and (2) a motion by defendant Maybelline Co. Laura Weiss, Fenster & Weiss, New City, New York, for Defendant Pavion Ltd.Īllen Winston, Winston & Winston, Rye, New York, for Defendants Zalan. Snyder, Dinsmore & Shohl, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Defendants Noxell Corp. Susan Robertson, Kirchstein, Ottinger, Israel & Schiffmiller, P.C., New York City, for Dell Laboratories, Inc. Katz, Cooper & Dunham L.L.P., New York City, for Plaintiffs Artmatic USA Cosmetics and Arthur Matney. Hauser, Walter, Conston, Alexander & Green, P.C., New York City, for Defendant Maybelline Co. Delahunty, Brooks, Haidt, Haffner & Delahunty, New York City, for Defendants Noxell Corp. MAYBELLINE CO., a DIVISION OF SCHERING PLOUGH, INC., Paris Presents, Inc., a division of Allied of Chicago, Inc., Noxell Corporation, Bonne-Bell, Inc., Almay Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Revlon Corp., Max Factor, Coty Division of Pfizer Inc., Pavion Ltd., Cosmetics & Chemical Manufacturers, Inc., Cosmair, Inc., Chesebrough Ponds, Inc., Dell Laboratories, Inc., Estee Lauder, Inc., Posner Labs, Inc., and Zalan Products Inc., Defendants. 850 (1995) ARTMATIC USA COSMETICS, a DIVISION OF the ARTHUR MATNEY CO., INC. Get extra savings by u sing discount code: LS12 you can receive an additional $12 off any order on the DollarDays Website.906 F.Supp. Artmatic's regular retail price is $1.99/bottle. You can actually get 144 bottles of nail polish for only $64.80 - that equates to $0.45/bottle plus shipping. With my recent interest in finding the most value and being able to 'stretch' the mighty dollar, Artmatic has resurfaced into the cosmetic limelight again.īy clicking the image below, get access to wholesale pricing from DollarDays. Even today, it is difficult to find any articles in the World Wide Web on the history or updates on Artmatic Cosmetics. No public announcement or news report on their absence in the mainstream cosmetic counters in my community could be found. Back then, in the late 1980's, I was intrigued by lipsticks & lip color those were the main products I used from Artmatic.Īs time passed, I no longer noticed that the Artmatic brand was displayed in the local drugstores in California. They were a drugstore brand of cosmetics that sold for about $1.99 comparable to today's popular NYC & Wet N Wild brands products. I remember Artmatic Cosmetics when I was a teenager.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |