Harper v. Frank

How courts have described this case

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

• holding jury was entitled to consider conflicting evidence and determine how much was appropriate to award
• noting that “[s]ome courts have suggested that a finding of likelihood of confusion can satisfy the irreparable harm requirement”
• denying fees where the willful violation did not meet the clear and convincing standard
• “If the infringement was willful, however, a court does not have to balance the hardships.”
• the jury was entitled to consider the experts’ calculations and other factors to determine what amount of profits was an appropriate award
• “It is not clear whether the Fifth Circuit has itself adopted such a requirement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).