Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Amouri's Grand Foods, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the “harm” suffered by a trademark infringer is “hardly a legally cognizable one”
• describing the “harm” suffered by a defendant prevented from continuing trademark infringement to be “hardly a legally cognizable one”
• “[W]e can think of no clearer ‘use’ of goods ‘in commerce’ than offering them for sale”
• “the harm [from confusion as to source] stems not from the actual quality of the goods (which is legally irrelevant) but rather from Lorillard’s loss of control over the quality of goods that bear its marks”
• “Our next factor to consider in assessing whether an injunction should be granted is whether it will cause harm to others—in this instance to [the defendant], for the ‘others’ in more generic terms, the consuming public, are dealt with in the next section of this opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).