Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Inocencio

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “whether [a] demand letter is a “sham” does not depend on [the litigants] ultimate success ... in pursuing its trademark infringement claims”
• concluding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted on its tortious interference claim, where the defendant trademark owner contacted the third party because it had “a good faith belief that its rights were being infringed” (citation omitted)
• observing that “[o]f the seven ... circuit courts that have encountered this question, six have found that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunizes pre-suit demand letters, so long as those demand letters are not a 'sham.' ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).