Daimler AG v. A-Z Wheels LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that 6 even where consumers would exercise a high degree of care, the degree of care factor 7 would not weigh against the plaintiff because nothing would have alerted consumers that 8 they were purchasing a replica version of the product
• denying the defendant’s first sale doctrine defense because defendant did not provide any evidence to rebut Daimler’s representative’s declaration that the wheels and center caps were counterfeit
• “Again, the Court finds it unnecessary to analyze the likelihood of confusion test because the marks are identical.”
• “Again, the Court finds it unnecessary to analyze the likelihood of confusion test because the marks are identical.”
• “Again, the Court finds it unnecessary to analyze the likelihood of confusion test because the marks are identical.”
• describing similar design patent in the same way

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Talent Mobile Dev., Inc. v. Headios Grp.
  C.D. California· 2019-02-06· cited 4×

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
• Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation
  Supreme Court· 1986-03-26· cited 58,760×
• Amf Incorporated, a Corporation v. Sleekcraft Boats, a Sole Proprietorship, and Bruce E. Nescher, an Individual
  Ninth Circuit· 1979-06-28· cited 811×
• Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 1999-04-22· cited 774×
• Mesler v. Bragg Management Co.
  California Supreme Court· 1985-08-01· cited 282×
• Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-09-22· cited 273×
• Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2011-03-08· cited 253×
• Henderson Duval Houghton v. Carroll v. South
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-06-11· cited 233×
• Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2010-08-19· cited 219×
• Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2012-06-27· cited 195×
• L.A. Gear, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Thom McAn Shoe Company and Melville Corporation and Pagoda Trading Company, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1993-04-13· cited 179×
• Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co.
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-06-19· cited 167×
• Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
  Federal Circuit· 2010-02-24· cited 157×
• Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2015-08-07· cited 135×
• Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp.
  Ninth Circuit· 1985-08-15· cited 115×
• R. G. Smith, Doing Business Under the Name and Style of Ta'ron, Inc., and International Fragrances, Inc. v. Chanel, Inc., and Chanel Industries, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 1968-11-15· cited 107×
• William A. Elmer and Hth, Inc. v. Icc Fabricating, Inc., and Take-Out Express, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-10-10· cited 105×
• Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 2011-09-12· cited 103×
• Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari
  Ninth Circuit· 2010-07-08· cited 86×