Starter Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Converse, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of agreement to settle trademark case was properly admitted in subsequent dispute between parties in which one asserted a claim for estoppel
• holding that the probative value of contested evidence “far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice” where “any potential unfair prejudice was cured” by a limiting jury instruction
• holding that survey evidence offered to show actual confusion was properly excludable under Rule 403 when it was so flawed that its probative value was outweighed by the risk of prejudice or confusion
• holding that evidence of agreement to settle trademark case was properly admitted in subsequent dispute between parties in which one asserted a claim for estoppel
• noting that, in exercising its “broad discretion,” the Court “should weigh the need for such evidence against the potentiality of discouraging future settlement negotiations” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that the district court realigned the parties for trial, because [the plaintiff] had “‘the burden of proof on the only remaining substantive issue,’ namely, whether use of the ... marks on shoes would infringe upon the [plaintiffs] mark”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).