United States v. One Urban Lot, Miriam Ruth Gelabert-Alvarez

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 plaintiff failed to present evidence that chemical differences between competing epoxies mattered to consumers
• finding that putative claimant lacks standing to contest forfeiture unless she files claim
• reversing and remanding for trial the district court’s finding of no confusion, since the district court failed to consider several of the seven relevant factors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).