eAcceleration Corp. v. Trend Micro, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• denying a motion to strike on Rule 408 grounds where “evidence of prior settlement demands or negotiations relates to [the plaintiff’s] delay in bringing the[] claims”
• “The intent factor, if 10 present, will weigh heavily in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion but, if absent, will 11 generally have no effect.”
• “However, even where the marks are identical, ‘there may be no consumer confusion—and 26 thus no trademark infringement—if the alleged infringer is in a different geographic area or in a wholly different industry.’
• “the price range [of $40 16 to $60] is not so low that the products would be bought on impulse. Thus, this factor is likely to 17 either favor [the defendant] slightly or be neutral.”
• “[E]ven where the marks are identical, ‘there 6 may be no consumer confusion—and thus no trademark infringement—if the alleged infringer is 7 in a different geographic area or in a wholly different industry.’” (quoting Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 8 1054)
• To establish “unfair competition claims under § 43(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).