28 Cited authorities

Dulany v. Carnahan
132 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,804 times
Holding that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was not in error as to inmate-plaintiffs, where neither submitted verifying medical evidence indicating that a delay in treatment resulted in an adverse effect
Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co.
108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 683 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants cannot be liable for false advertising when they were not "responsible for disseminating the offending advertisements"
Evers v. General Motors Corp.
770 F.2d 984 (11th Cir. 1985) Cited 751 times
Holding that "conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value" in a response to a motion for summary judgment
United Ind. Corp. v. Clorox Co.
140 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 1998) Cited 427 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that movant seeking a preliminary injunction has a heavy burden
Clorox Co. Puerto Rico v. Proctor Gamble
228 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2000) Cited 376 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court may consider a document "integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint, even though not attached to the complaint" (quoting Shaw v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1220 (1st Cir. 1996) )
Mid-State Fertilizer v. Exchange Nat. Bank
877 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir. 1989) Cited 395 times
Holding that where recovery by a victim-firm would make the shareholders of the firm whole, the shareholders lacked independent standing to sue under § 1972 because it would result in "double counting" of recovery
Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.
987 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1993) Cited 307 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a plaintiff must prove either literal falsity or consumer confusion, but not both”
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Bell
106 F.3d 258 (8th Cir. 1997) Cited 210 times
Determining whether a fraudulent transfer had occurred under the Arkansas Fraudulent Transfer Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-59-204
Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Products, Inc.
690 F.2d 312 (2d Cir. 1982) Cited 279 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that statistical tests provided "sufficient evidence of a risk of irreparable harm because they demonstrate that a significant number of consumers would be likely to be misled"
James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of Beefeater, Inc.
540 F.2d 266 (7th Cir. 1976) Cited 245 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that a confusion rate of 15% was evidence of more than de minimis confusion
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,337 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,744 times 256 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,311 times 321 Legal Analyses
Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 803 Cited 12,693 times 85 Legal Analyses
Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,579 times 260 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

American Italian Pasta Company v. New World Pasta Company et al

28 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was not in error as to inmate-plaintiffs, where neither submitted verifying medical evidence indicating that a delay in treatment resulted in an adverse effect

Holding that defendants cannot be liable for false advertising when they were not "responsible for disseminating the offending advertisements"

Holding that "conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value" in a response to a motion for summary judgment

Holding that movant seeking a preliminary injunction has a heavy burden

Holding that the court may consider a document "integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint, even though not attached to the complaint" (quoting Shaw v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1220 (1st Cir. 1996) )

Holding that where recovery by a victim-firm would make the shareholders of the firm whole, the shareholders lacked independent standing to sue under § 1972 because it would result in "double counting" of recovery

Holding that “a plaintiff must prove either literal falsity or consumer confusion, but not both”

Determining whether a fraudulent transfer had occurred under the Arkansas Fraudulent Transfer Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-59-204

Holding that statistical tests provided "sufficient evidence of a risk of irreparable harm because they demonstrate that a significant number of consumers would be likely to be misled"

Finding that a confusion rate of 15% was evidence of more than de minimis confusion

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Adopting the Daubert standard

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"