Skip to main content
· 11/20/1957

Bray v. Main

Citations

  • 212 Or. 61
  • 318 P.2d 266
  • 1957 Ore. LEXIS 192

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that disgorgement may be justified “to avoid unjust enrichment” or “if necessary to protect the plaintiff by deterring a willful infringer from further infringement”
  • noting that 7 “injunctive relief may be adequate if there has been no fraud or palming off”
  • applying Safe Distance Rule only after defendant had been found in contempt of an injunction
  • noting \the Lanham Act's designation of an accounting of defendant's profits as an equitable remedy\
  • applying Safe Distance Rule where infringer simply tried to escape liability by changing infringing “Heritage Series” to “H-Series”
  • approving the scope of a permanent injunction under the safe-distance rule

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cueiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.