noting that, “in issuing the injunction, the court held that Advance had intentionally copied the SHARK watch” and that, although there was no direct evidence of copying, “similarity can be probative of intentional copying” such that the court “did not abuse its discretion in making the inference and asking Advance to rebut it”
Summary of this case from Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.No. 89-56060.
January 10, 1991.
C.D.Cal.
AFFIRMED
noting that, “in issuing the injunction, the court held that Advance had intentionally copied the SHARK watch” and that, although there was no direct evidence of copying, “similarity can be probative of intentional copying” such that the court “did not abuse its discretion in making the inference and asking Advance to rebut it”
Summary of this case from Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.noting that, "in issuing the injunction, the court held that Advance had intentionally copied the SHARK watch" and that, although there was no direct evidence of copying, "similarity can be probative of intentional copying" such that the court "did not abuse its discretion in making the inference and asking Advance to rebut it"
Summary of this case from Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.stating that "[t]he modification or clarification of an injunction lies within the 'sound discretion' of the district court"
Summary of this case from Sterling-Pacific Lending, Inc. v. Moser (In re Moser)Full title:Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Pencon Intern., Inc
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Date published: Jan 10, 1991
to the court requesting clarification as to whether his sentence ran concurrently with or consecutively to…
Vital Pharm. v. Monster Energy Co.That circuit has repeatedly said that "image advertising"—advertising that " ‘feature[s] in’ some way the…