Page:Michael Anthony Jewelers v. Peacock Jewelry.pdf/3

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

MICHAEL ANTHONY JEWELERS v. PEACOCK JEWELRY
Cite as 795 F.Supp. 639 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)

641

Weil, Gotshal & Manges (Peter D. Isakoff, of counsel), Curtis, Morris & Safford, P.C. (Edgar H. Haug, of counsel), New York City, for plaintiff.

Morrison Law Firm (Roger S. Thompson, of counsel), Mt. Vernon, N.Y., for defendants.

OPINION

SAND, District Judge.

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc. (“MAJ”) and defendant Peacock Jewelry, Inc. (“Peacock”)^[1] are both New York corporations engaged in the manufacture and sale of gold jewelry. Of particular rele-

↑ In addition to Peacock, MAJ named Mr. Craftsman, Inc. and Frank Vairo (the President of Peacock and Mr. Craftsman, Inc.) as defendants. The parties have referred to the defendants collectively as “Peacock” throughout these proceedings, however, and we will continue to do so in this Opinion.

[1] In addition to Peacock, MAJ named Mr. Craftsman, Inc. and Frank Vairo (the President of Peacock and Mr. Craftsman, Inc.) as defendants. The parties have referred to the defendants collectively as “Peacock” throughout these proceedings, however, and we will continue to do so in this Opinion.

[1]