§Why CasetextPricing

Gilsulate International Inc v. Dritherm International Inc et al

MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW

27 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 27,369 times   244 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

    526 U.S. 137 (1999)   Cited 13,138 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

  3. Bourjaily v. United States

    483 U.S. 171 (1987)   Cited 2,817 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that trial judge may consider any evidence whatsoever, including the proffered hearsay statements, in determining whether statements are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule

  4. TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc.

    653 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 741 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court committed no error in holding that the defendants violated the Lanham Act but declining to make an award of profits, where the plaintiffs "didn't produce any proof of past injury or causation"

  5. Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co.

    108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 710 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants cannot be liable for false advertising when they were not "responsible for disseminating the offending advertisements"

  6. J. J. Vision Care v. 1-800 Contacts

    299 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 288 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Vacating preliminary injunction against defendant due to lack of evidence that defendant's references in advertising to "eye doctor" rather than "eye care practitioner" could have had any effect on consumer behavior

  7. Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp.

    982 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 337 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the damages for lost profits set forth were speculative because plaintiff produced evidence of its total product sales, without subdividing its data into the category of sales at issue; the court also noted that "[i]t would have been error for the district court to select an arbitrary percentage of total sales to represent the more narrow submarket of telephone sales"

  8. Gracie v. Gracie

    217 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 234 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a 15 U.S.C. § 1114 violation does not require evidence of actual confusion, because only "likelihood of confusion" is mentioned in the statute

  9. BASF Corp. v. Old World Trading Co.

    41 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 181 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case exceptional where the defendant "advertised that its antifreeze met certain industry specifications" even though it "had never actually tested its antifreeze to determine whether it met [those] specifications"

  10. PepsiCo, Inc. v. Triunfo-Mex, Inc.

    189 F.R.D. 431 (C.D. Cal. 1999)   Cited 158 times

    On motion for default judgment in trademark infringement suit, the District Court, Paez, J., held that: (1) default judgment was warranted; (2) amount of profits made by defendant in violation of the Tariff and Lanham Acts would be trebled for purpose of assessment of damages, pursuant to section of the Lanham Act conferring authority on court to treble defendant's profits in the event that compensatory damages are inadequate to deter future infringing conduct; and (3) defendant's deliberate and

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 27,945 times   287 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,699 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

  13. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 18,511 times   318 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,856 times   329 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"

  15. Section 1117 - Recovery for violation of rights

    15 U.S.C. § 1117   Cited 5,149 times   154 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts significant discretion to award damages for a violation of § 1125

  16. Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500   Cited 2,773 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state

  17. Section 17208 - Statute of limitations

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208   Cited 643 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Governing UCL claims

  18. Section 20141 - Misuse of agency name and initials

    51 U.S.C. § 20141

    (a) IN GENERAL.-No person (as defined by section 20135(a) of this title) may knowingly use the words "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" or the letters "NASA", or any combination, variation, or colorable imitation of those words or letters either alone or in combination with other words or letters- (1) as a firm or business name in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that the firm or business has some connection with, endorsement of, or authorization from, the Administration

  19. Section 47.1 - Incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination privileged communications

    Cal. Civ. Code § 47.1   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) A communication made by an individual, without malice, regarding an incident of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination is privileged under Section 47. (b) A prevailing defendant in any defamation action brought against that defendant for making a communication that is privileged under this section shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney's fees and costs for successfully defending themselves in the litigation, plus treble damages for any harm caused to them by the defamation action