United States v. Fantin

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the “the Lanham Act does not preempt state law”
• granting summary judgment on Lanham Act claim based on lack of evidence that statement was false in a way that is likely to influence consumer behavior
• “The lack of evidence of secondary meaning is not fatal to [plaintiff’s] common law trade dress claim.”
• claim for false advertising under § 350 requires showing, inter alia, “that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• Cross-Examination of Stanley Cohen (“Cohen Cross”)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).