United States v. Zepeda-Morales

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the plaintiff's \pendant state law claim[s] ... are likewise dismissed because they are based on the same permissible conduct as its Lanham Act claim.\ (citations omitted)
• finding artistic relevance where defendant used plaintiff's product for an ironic and humorous purpose within a film
• applying Rogers and granting motion to dismiss where plaintiff argued that their marks had been used “in commercials and advertisements for the film”
• considering the allegedly infringing work because it was referred to in the complaint and integral to plaintiff’s claims in making its determination on a motion to dismiss
• “[T]he discovery [plaintiff] seeks is irrelevant . . . [because there] is no indication that [defendant’s use of plaintiff's marks] use was commercially motivated.”
• “The Court is satisfied that Warner Bros.’ use of the [plaintiff's luxury] bag (whether intentional or inadvertent) was intended to create an artistic association with Louis Vuitton, and there is no indication that its use was commercially motivated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).