Pfizer Inc. v. Sachs

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that defendants were aware of plaintiffs marks and that defendants refused to comply with plaintiffs cease-and-desist letters
• dealing with false endorsement claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and unrelated deceptive acts and practices claims under NYGBL Section 349
• awarding attorneys’ fees where defendants failed to comply with two cease-and-desist letters, did not seek the advice of counsel, and instead threatened plaintiff with continued infringement.
• “The absence of proof of actual confusion is not fatal to a finding of likelihood [of confusion], particularly where, as here, the junior mark has been in the marketplace for a relatively short period of time.”
• “The absence of proof of actual confusion is not fatal to a finding of likelihood [of confusion], particularly where, as here, the junior mark has been in the marketplace for a relatively short period of time.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).