Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corporation, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Lenox Laboratories, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because the district court erred in finding success on the merits, its findings regarding irreparable harm and the balance of hardships are also insufficient to support the grant of a preliminary injunction
• holding that district court erred in granting preliminary injunction based on public’s interest in not being confused by product, imitation scented perfume, where court failed to consider countervailing public interest in obtaining the product at the lowest possible price
• stating that district courts should consider “the broader economic implications” of granting injunctive relief when weighing the public interest factor
• noting that “the value [of] free competition” must be weighed in a trademark action
• involving a trademark infringement and anti-trust action, noting strong public interest in low prices, avoiding monopolies and encouraging, not stifling, competition
• cautioning against “putting too much stock in a subjective inspection done in-chambers that is devoid of market characteristics” because a “realistic evaluation of consumer confusion must attempt to recreate the conditions in which buying decisions are made”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).