S&L VITAMINS, INC. v. Australian Gold, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “The parties have not sufficiently addressed the Polaroid factors to enable the Court to make a determination, as a matter of law, that there is no likelihood of confusion.”
• “[W]here a ‘purchaser resells a trademarked article under the producer’s trademark, and nothing more, there is no actionable misrepresentation’ under the Lanham Act.” (quoting Sebastian Int’l, Inc. v. Longs Drug Stores Corp., 53 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 1995))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).