CIA Investigations of United States Persons in the United States

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that Rogers “is not a mechanical test” and “all the relevant facts and circumstances must be considered”
• explaining that the inquiry focuses “on the nature of the junior user’s behavior rather than on the impact of the use” (quotations and alterations omitted)
• explaining that “past[ing] Disney’s trademark 19 at the bottom corner of a painting that depicts Mickey Mouse” could suffice to satisfy 20 Rogers’s second prong
• noting that use of a mark is less likely to be explicitly misleading when “the mark served as only one component of the larger expressive work”
• explaining that when expressive activity is at issue, we “employ[] the First Amendment as a rule of construction to avoid conflict between the Constitution and the Lanham Act”
• noting that “on every prior occasion in which we have applied the [Rogers] test, we have found that it barred an infringement claim as a matter of law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).