Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Estate of O'Connell

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that prior negotiations that ended eight years before plaintiffs filed lawsuit did not excuse delay
• noting that “evidence of actual confusion is critical” in showing inevitable confusion
• rejecting investigation excuse “particularly as the ‘extent and nature’ of [defendant’s] allegedly offending use was already known”
• laches defense is supported by a delay of more than 13 years, but not by a delay of less than two years
• negotiations over contract validity did not affect plaintiffs ability to bring trademark suit
• “[L]aches may not be used to shield a party from the consequences of conduct it knows to be wrongful. . . . Thus, defendants must also establish that they acted in ‘good faith.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).