Thomas Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “[a]ll that must be proven to establish liability and the need for an injunction against infringement is the likelihood of confusion—injury is presumed.”
• observing that the court “disregard[s] all evidence favorable to [the moving party] that the jury is not required to believe”
• noting that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when “the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the movant’s favor that jurors could not reasonably have reached a contrary verdict”
• adopting the view of a leading treatise, that as to the first factor of the permanent injunction analysis, “[a]ll that must be proven to establish liability and the need for an injunction against infringement is the likelihood of confusion֫—injury is presumed”
• “All that must be proven to establish liability and the need for an injunction against infringement is the likelihood of confusion—injury is presumed.”
• “A laches defense cannot be asserted by a party with unclean hands because it is equitable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).