Guthrie v. Wickliff

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “the public harm that results from trademark infringement is too insubstantial to satisfy the pleading requirements of [section] 349”
• noting that although findings of the USPTO are not binding on district courts, they are given substantial deference in this Circuit
• collecting cases and stating that \'[c]ourts routinely reject such attempts to fashion Section 349 and 350 claims from garden variety disputes between competitors'\
• “Perfect seeks only injunctive relief. It does not claim to have suffered monetary harm, and does not seek money damages, from Majestic’s misuse of the (B
• “[I]n general, courts do not bind parties to their statements made or positions taken in ex parte application proceedings in front of the PTO.”
• “[I]n general, courts do not bind parties to their statements made or positions taken in ex parte application proceedings in front of the PTO.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).