The Virgo

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trademark claims are not cognizable under section 349 without “specific and substantial injury to the public interest over and above ordinary trademark infringement or dilution” (cleaned up)
• holding that a GC mark on sunglasses was a counterfeit of plaintiff’s CC mark
• finding that legal conclusions may logically follow from facts as admitted
• dismissing a Section 349 claim predicated on alleged “confusion and deception of the consuming public” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Rule 36, by its express terms, embraces only requests for admissions of fact or of the application of law to fact…To force the defendant to ‘admit’ [legal conclusions] would only frustrate the purposes for which Rule 36 was drafted” (quotations omitted)
• “Rule 36, by its express terms, embraces only requests for admissions of fact or of the application of law to fact…To force the defendant to ‘admit’ [legal conclusions] would only frustrate the purposes for which Rule 36 was drafted” (quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).