Castrol, Inc. v. Pennzoil Quaker State Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling 56 that the plaintiff in that case was “entitled to disgorgement of [the defendant’s] profits” for its “claims under the New Jersey Common Law of Unfair Competition ... .”
• requiring a showing of clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s false advertising was willful
• requiring a showing of clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's false advertising was willful
• “Surely, Castrol must demonstrate with reasonable certainty the portion of Pennzoil’s profits attributable to the willful and intentional false advertising before the Court can order disgorgement.”
• “[T]he language of [the Lanham Act] makes no mention of a trial by jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).