judgment is granted as to Count II. IV. Remaining State Law Claims Defendants have met their burden of establishing that no rational trier of fact could find that the phrase “Box Packaging” warrants trademark protection as either a suggestive mark, or alternatively, as a descriptive mark that acquired a secondary meaning. Defendants also establish that no genuine issue of material facts exist as to the other federal claims brought under the Lanham Act. Plaintiff fails to meet its burden of showing through specific evidence that a triable issues of fact remain. As such, this Court grants summary judgment as to Plaintiffs common law and statutory claims because all are resolved under the same analysis as the federal claims. (Counts VI through IX). See Spex, Inc., 847 F.Supp. at 579 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this
holding that the airline deregulation act preempts claims under the illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act but does not preempt state breach of contract actions holding that the same legal standards and analysis apply to cases brought under maryland and federal trademark infringement statutes holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper holding consumer claims under the texas deceptive trade practices act nonassignable holding that cjlaims for unfair competition and deceptive business practices involving trade names brought under illinois statutes are to be resolved according to the principles set forth under the lanham act and noting that illinois courts look to federal case law and apply the same analysis to state infringement claims