Eastland Music Group, LLC v. Lionsgate Entertainment, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that if the defendant’s work bore the same name as the plaintiff’s, “allegations of confusion ... could be omitted from the complaint”
• noting that if the defendant’s work bore the same name as the plaintiff’s, “allegations of confusion . . . could be omitted from the complaint”
• reasoning that any allegation of confusion as to the source of the defendant’s product based on its title “would be too implausible to support costly litigation”
• “It is unnecessary to consider possible constitutional defenses to trademark enforcement, ... [when the] complaint fails at the threshold.”
• “Only a confusion about origin supports a trademark claim, and ‘origin’ for this purpose means the ‘producer of the tangible product sold in the marketplace.’ ”
• “Dastar held that trademark law cannot be used to obtain rights over the content of an artistic work; that would amount to an indefinite extension of a copyright.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).