Bell v. Harley Davidson Motor Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that defendant did not put allegedly infringing mark on its merchandise where one would expect to find the source-identifiers of a product
• “Black-letter law holds that California’s common-law doctrine of misappropriation does not extend to trademark infringement claims.”
• “Section 43(a)(1) provides 4 similar protection to trademarks regardless of registration.” (footnote and citations 5 omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).