Thomas v. Orange County Government

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff stated a § 349 claim where plaintiff “alleged facts plausibly suggesting that Defendant intentionally registered its corporate name to be confusingly similar to Plaintiffs CommScope trademark”
• finding that there was no adequate remedy at law where plaintiff alleged that defendant’s infringing use of its trademark would continue unless restrained
• finding that plaintiff established liability on motion for default judgment where defendant used the word “Commscope” in its corporate name and licensed it to third parties, which was likely to injure the business name and reputation of plaintiff’s mark
• “Having established Defendant’s liability for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Plaintiff has also established liability under New York State common law.”
• issuing a default judgment where plaintiff alleged that defendant intentionally registered its corporate name to be confusingly similar to plaintiff’s “CommScope” trademark and that plaintiff would continue to suffer damages because of defendant’s use of the similar name
• refusing to compel a state “Secretary of State to dissolve [d]efendant’s corporate name in the event that [d]efendant fails to do so . . . because, among other things, injunctive relief may not ordinarily be issued against non-parties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).