Commonwealth v. Licking Valley Building Ass'n

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the musician had a strong mark because he \sold over 25 million copies of his albums\ and \[h]e has also been nominated thirteen times for a Grammy Award.\
• finding that the musician had a strong mark because he “sold over 25 million copies of his albums” and “[hJe has also been nominated thirteen times for a Grammy Award.”
• finding “sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that this factor weighs in [plaintiffs] favor” based on defendant’s “knowledge of [plaintiffs] persona” and use of his trademark without permission
• finding no good cause despite attorney mistake because prolonged delay failed to demonstrate diligence
• “summary judgment is appropriate . . . where the person in the photograph is identifiable by someone familiar with him.”
• “[the unclean hands doctrine] applies only with respect to the right at issue.” citing Warner Bros., Inc. v. Gay Toys, Inc., 724 F.2d 327, 334 (2d Cir.1983)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).