C.P. Interests, Inc. v. California Pools, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party’s motion in limine was insufficient to preserve the issue of admission of evidence for appeal when the party did not object to the evidence at trial
• discussing the Tea Rose–Rectanus doctrine, a doctrine under which a territorially remote junior user acting in good faith may continue using a mark in a given territory where the junior user was the first to use the mark in that territory
• “[W]e do not believe that attorney’s fees are properly assigned to the category of pecuniary losses.”
• “[W]e do not believe that attorney’s fees are properly assigned to the category of pecuniary losses.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).