Silliven v. Bellocq, Noblom & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “Defendants 14 are not precluded from raising the fair use defense” where disputed material facts exist as 15 to the likelihood of confusion
• permitting hypothetical licensing 2 damages in a Lanham Act dispute “if the evidence provides a sufficiently reliable basis to 3 calculate such damages”
• requiring a “sufficiently 9 reliable basis to calculate. . . damages” in absence of a prior licensing agreement
• granting summary judgment on a void ab initio affirmative defense because, among other things, such challenges are absent from the list of statutory defenses to an incontestable registration and absent from section 1064
• finding, where plaintiff 6 offered evidence of actual confusion and that its sales and profits decreased after 7 asserted infringement began, plaintiff entitled to have jury consider whether to award cost 8 to conduct corrective advertising
• “The Court should not have to ‘search for truffles’ in the evidentiary record submitted with the parties' motions to discover the facts supporting Plaintiff’s claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).