Forbes v. Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a mark acquired sec- 13454 ART ATTACKS v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT ondary meaning due to continued use of forty-six years and “extensive and expensive advertising and promotion”
• concluding on appeal that disqualification claim first raised in motion for new trial was \not timely\
• finding that 40% of nationwide participants believed plaintiff “put[ ] out” defendants’ similarly named cheese product
• stating that an injunction must be “tailored to eliminate only the 28 specific harm alleged”
• holding motion for disqualification of trial judge filed with motion for new trial was untimely where litigant knew when judge was assigned case that judge had been partner in firm representing opposing party
• explaining that “consumers tend to exercise less care when purchasing lower cost items”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).