PetMed Express, Inc. v. MedPets.Com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that statutory damages are “[e]specially appropriate in default judgment cases due to infringer nondisclosure” (citations omitted)
• holding that when the plaintiff sought statutory damages and attached detailed declarations and documentary evidence to the plaintiff’s default motion, a hearing was unnecessary to determine damages
• noting that plaintiff’s mark had priority because it had been selling its products for five years before defendant created the competing domain names
• explaining that a plaintiff’s mark has priority when the plaintiff uses the mark before the defendant began using the similar mark
• finding that “[i]n establishing a website on the internet, Defendants have used the infringing marks in commerce.”
• noting that plaintiff’s mark had priority because it had been selling its products for five years before defendant created the competing domain names

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).