R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that supplementary registration filed “over a year and a half after initiating this action”, “more than three months after the close of fact discovery”, and “more than five months after having been made aware of inconsistencies” in the initial registration could not be presumed accurate
• presuming initial registrations valid even though plaintiff filed a supplementary registration a year and a half after filing suit and more than three months after fact discovery closed correcting certain errors
• “[t]he elements specified as the trade dress must be present in every item in that product line”
• \[T]hose who knowingly play a significant role in furthering trade dress infringement are liable as contributing parties.\
• no preemption for misappropriation and unjust enrichment claims based on “types of information [that] are not covered by copyright law” such as “sales data, marketing, customer preferences and distributor information”
• “By waiting until after the close of fact discovery to correct the Registration, despite being aware [of] its supposed inaccuracies for several months, RFMAS forfeited any presumption as to the accuracy of the statements contained in the Supplementary Registration.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).