Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court properly excluded a likelihood of confusion survey that (1) used vague and imprecise language and (2) surveyed consumers outside of the relevant customer base
• stating that the court properly fulfilled its gatekeeping duty to exclude the survey where these flaws were deemed to be fatal rather than merely technical
• explaining that “the [trademark] infringement amounts to borrowing the senior user’s reputation and goodwill, which is an injury in and of itself”
• determining that trademark infringement amounts to irreparable injury as a matter of law
• determining that trademark infringement amounts to irreparable injury as a matter of law
• upholding the exclusion of a likelihood of confusion survey where the respondents were not part of the relevant customer base

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).