Rhoades v. Avon Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, under the Ninth Circuit’s “reasonable apprehension” test, concrete or explicit threats of litigation are not necessary for a plaintiff to have standing
• noting that, under the Ninth Circuit’s “reasonable apprehension” test, concrete or explicit threats of litigation are not necessary for a plaintiff to have standing
• noting that motions challenging the “jurisdictional case or controversy requirement . . . may be brought only under 12(b)(1)” (internal quotations omitted)
• stating that courts must take care to ensure the 9 presence of “an actual case or controversy” in DJA actions, “such that the judgment does 10 not become an unconstitutional advisory opinion”
• holding TTAB, “unlike 24 a federal district court, . . . cannot give relief for an infringement claim, either injunctive or 25 by way of damages” (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1063(a), 1064, 1067(a)) (alteration omitted)
• rejecting argument that settlement 23 communications could not be cited in support of subject matter jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).