TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court applied the wrong legal standard by failing to consider the opposing party’s conduct that warranted the grant of injunctive relief
• stating that a presumption of commercial injury takes place “when defendant and plaintiff are direct competitors” who “vie for the same dollars from the same consumer group”
• noting that the plaintiffs “compete with defendants for referral 19 revenue” and thus “[s]ales gained by one are thus likely to come at the other’s expense” 20 (citation omitted)
• denying plaintiffs an award of profits because they “didn’t produce any proof of past injury or causation”
• questioning whether the unclean hands 9 doctrine applies to a statutory fee-shifting provision that does not “use the word ‘equity’” 10 (citations omitted)
• labeling a plaintiff and defendant direct 26 competitors because they both market and sell traffic school and driver’s ed courses to the 27 same target market

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).