ILNews

COA to hear arguments in trademark case at Merrillville High School

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals will hear oral argument in An-Hung Yao v. State of Indiana and Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana at 12:30 p.m. (CDT) May 25, 2011, at Merrillville High School in the Freshman Center Lecture Hall. A panel of judges consisting of Chief Judge Margret G. Robb, Judge Michael P. Barnes, and Judge Terry A. Crone will hear the case on appeal from Huntington Circuit Court.

In this consolidated interlocutory appeal, An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin appeal the trial court’s denial of their individual motions to dismiss three counts of theft of a trademark and one count of corrupt business influence, arguing that a trademark cannot be the subject of a theft and that they cannot be prosecuted in Indiana because no conduct that is an element of the offenses occurred in Indiana. The state cross-appeals the trial court’s grant of Yao’s and Lin’s motions to dismiss three counts of counterfeiting a trademark. Arguing for An-Hung Yao will be Indianapolis attorney Tyler Helmond, arguing for Yu-Ting Lin will be Ft. Wayne attorney Jeremy Gayed, and arguing for the state of Indiana will be Indianapolis attorney Andrew Kobe.

Members of the public who would like to attend the oral argument are asked to call Merrillville High School at 219-650-5307 to find out specific details about the school’s visitor sign-in policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT