Lesseps v. Lapène

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there was sufficient legal identity when one entity “owns and/or controls all twenty- five entities that Plaintiffs seek to enjoin”
• explaining that an injunction “[does] not disserve the public interest” where it “would prevent the proliferation of counterfeit works”
• noting that “a court may award fees if ‘a party’s conduct is unreasonable’” and that the defendants’ “incomprehensible decision to plead 52 affirmative defenses,” knowing many had been previously rejected, was unreasonable conduct
• awarding attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act based on litigation conduct, including taking “unreasonable” positions and making “untenable” arguments
• refusing to waive bond requirement “solely on the basis that it will pose a severe financial hardship on the appellant”
• allowing summary evidence under Rule 1006 where one team member responsible for the preparation of the summaries could testify

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).