Breckenridge Asphalt Co. v. Richardson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an 2 injunction would serve public interests of protecting the rights of trademark holders 3 against infringement and minimizing consumer confusion
• concluding the same in a trademark 21 infringement case
• “[I]njunctive relief serves the public 20 interest by protecting the rights of trademark holders against infringement and also 21 minimizing consumer confusion.”
• “[I]njunctive relief serves the public 13 interest by protecting the rights of trademark holders against infringement and also 14 minimizing consumer confusion.”
• “injunctive relief serves 11 the public interest by protecting the rights of trademark holders against infringement and also 12 minimizing consumer confusion.”
• “[I]njunctive relief serves the public 5 interest by protecting the rights of trademark holders against infringement and also 6 minimizing consumer confusion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).