14 Cited authorities

  1. Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,776 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement
  2. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.

    514 U.S. 159 (1995)   Cited 563 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
  3. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp.

    174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,073 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding mark use was not sufficiently public when used in a website domain and in "limited correspondence with lawyers and a few customers"
  4. Savin Corp. v. Savin Group

    391 F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 292 times
    Holding that a single incident of actual confusion at a meeting was de minimis and insufficient to support a finding of a likelihood of confusion
  5. Playboy Enterprises v. Netscape Comm

    354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 208 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that infringement could be based on defendant's insertion of unidentified banner ads on C-user's search-results page
  6. Lamparello v. Falwell

    420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005)   Cited 167 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "critical element" is "use of another firm's mark to capture the markholder's customers and profits" and quoting Checkpoint with approval
  7. Squirtco v. Seven-Up Co.

    628 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir. 1980)   Cited 285 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to make formal findings of fact may be excusable error where the facts are uncontroverted
  8. McNeil v. Heartland

    511 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 128 times
    Holding that the Pennsylvania trademark dilution statute continued to require a showing of actual dilution after the Lanham Act was revised to include likelihood of dilution
  9. Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc.

    304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 132 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the transfer of a domain name, as opposed to an injunction on its use, was inappropriate where the plaintiff established trademark infringement but failed to establish a violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, citing 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(C)
  10. Packard Elevator v. I.C.C

    782 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1986)   Cited 157 times
    Holding that recoverable monetary loss may constitute irreparable harm "only where the loss threatens the very existence of the [petitioner's] business"