Dave Guardala Mouthpieces, Inc. v. Sugal Mouthpieces, 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 sending advertisements and attempting to sell the infringing product to three specific stores in Manhattan was sufficient to support venue
• finding that venue was proper where Plaintiff provided evidence that Defendant “targeted New York as a market and made an active effort to market its [goods in New York]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).