La Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, 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 a district court does not commit clear error simply by choosing to credit the testimony of one witness over another
• holding there was “no basis” for a Lanham Act claim, given the district court’s factual findings that “neither [of the defendants] made any false or misleading oral or written statements or representations”
• observing a plaintiff may prove copying either with direct evidence of copying or by showing access and “probative similarities”
• noting district “court did not commit clear error simply because it chose to credit” one witness’s testimony over another
• analyzing New Mexico Unfair Practices Act claims together with Lanham Act claims of false designation of origin
• “Striking similarity exists when the proof of similarity in appearance is so striking that the possibilities of independent creation, coincidence and prior common source are, as a practical matter, precluded.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).