§Why CasetextPricing

Coach, Inc. et al v. Di Da Import and Export Inc.

MEMORANDUM

15 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,702 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,273 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  3. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.

    527 U.S. 308 (1999)   Cited 786 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that preliminary injunctive relief freezing defendants' assets was not warranted because injunctive relief was historically unavailable where plaintiff sought only money damages for breach of contract

  4. Hall v. Cole

    412 U.S. 1 (1973)   Cited 959 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members, and reimbursing the attorneys' fees from the union treasury, such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation

  5. Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc.

    751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014)   Cited 427 times
    Holding that defendant-company's sending emails to Indiana residents as part of email blasts to a larger subscriber list was "entirely fortuitous" because the contacts with Indiana depended on "the users who signed up," i.e., activities "wholly ... out of the defendant's control"

  6. BE2 LLC v. Ivanov

    642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 228 times
    Holding that out-of-state dating website operator was not subject to jurisdiction in Illinois where "the 20 Chicagoans who created free profiles on [the defendant's website] may have done so unilaterally by stumbling across the website ...."

  7. Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC

    622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 208 times
    Holding that "[t]here is nothing constitutionally unfair about allowing Illinois" to exercise personal jurisdiction where the defendant had "held itself out to conduct business nationwide and was apparently successful in reaching customers across the country"

  8. Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S

    383 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 196 times
    Holding that "Premising personal jurisdiction on the maintenance of a website, without requiring some level of `interactivity' between the defendant and consumers in the forum state, would create almost universal personal jurisdiction because of the virtually unlimited accessibility of websites across the country"

  9. Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Crate Barrel Limited

    96 F. Supp. 2d 824 (N.D. Ill. 2000)   Cited 103 times
    Finding that general jurisdiction was inappropriate where Illinois resident purchased goods from defendant's interactive website and had them sent to Illinois

  10. Richter v. Instar Enterprises Intern., Inc.

    594 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (N.D. Ill. 2009)   Cited 34 times
    Holding sales de minimus where they represented one tenth of one percent of overall sales

  11. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,357 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"

  12. Section 1001 - Statements or entries generally

    18 U.S.C. § 1001   Cited 7,367 times   304 Legal Analyses
    Making false statements

  13. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,804 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

  14. Section 2.102 - Extension of time for filing an opposition

    37 C.F.R. § 2.102   Cited 3 times

    (a) Any person who believes that he, she or it would be damaged by the registration of a mark on the Principal Register may file a request with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to extend the time for filing an opposition. The request need not be verified, but must be signed by the potential opposer or by the potential opposer's attorney, as specified in § 11.1 of this chapter, or authorized representative, as specified in § 11.14(b) of this chapter. Electronic signatures pursuant to § 2.193(c)