Coach Services, Inc. v. 777 Lucky Accessories, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing tortious interference claim brought against “various customers” and noting “no cause of action exists for tortious interference with a business's relationship to the community at large.” (emphasis added; citations and internal quotation marks omitted
• “Lucky’s allegation that it was planning to sell its sunglasses to ‘various customers’ is too vague and abstract to satisfy the first element of a tortious interference claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).