Municipality No. 2 v. Municipality No. 1

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that defendant violated the Lanham Act because it printed trademark-offending goods
• awarding statutory damages of $300,000 per mark per type of counterfeit good, for a total statutory damages award of $19.2 million
• rejecting non-movant’s argument that there were material questions of fact because it “rest[ed] on speculation about potential holes in the evidence, born of [the non-movant’s] failure to take discovery in order to mount an evidence- based challenge”
• fact that plaintiff “ha[d] developed and strengthened [its marks] over decades of exposure” weighs in favor of higher damages award
• fact that plaintiff “ha[d] developed and strengthened [its marks] over decades of exposure” weighs in favor of higher damages award
• fact that plaintiff “ha[d] developed and strengthened [its marks] over decades of exposure” weighs in favor of higher damages award

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).