Dandie v. Southern Pacific Railroad

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).