Lacara v. Town of Islip

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a statement referring to “Evil Avenue” plausibly was intended and would be understood as referring to “AvePoint” based on context
• finding that a statement referring to “Evil Avenue” plausibly was intended and would be understood as referring to “AvePoint” based on context
• finding the sale element satisfied when the defendants created a fake LinkedIn profile to direct customers to Avepoint's primary competitor
• denying motion to dismiss where the defendants' Twitter postings misled customers to encourage them to buy the defendants' products
• denying defendant’s motion to dismiss where plaintiff adequately pled the likelihood of confusion
• \[C]ourts have repeatedly held that the unauthorized use of a trademark on the internet satisfies the 'in commerce' requirement.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).