Maljack Productions, Inc. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the 21 district court did not err in admitting documents where the opposing party produced the documents 22 and did not contest their authenticity
• concluding that “[t]he district court did not err in considering the documents as indicators of MPI’s motivation . . . [because] MPI produced the documents to GoodTimes, many of the documents were on MPI letterhead and MPI does not contest their authenticity”
• concluding that “[t]he district court did not err in considering the documents as indicators of MPI’s motivation ... [because] MPI produced the documents to GoodTimes, many of the documents were on MPI letterhead and MPI does not contest their authenticity”
• stating that right to synchronize music in any future technologies, including videocassettes, is included in clause granting party all the music rights of a motion picture
• explaining that the secondary meaning of a mark is established through proof that the public associates the mark “with a single source, even if that source is anonymous”
• explaining that the secondary meaning of a mark is established through proof that the public associates the mark “with a single source, even if that source is anonymous”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).