11 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,049 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,170 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Rollins v. Butland
951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 531 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a private individual seeking a consumer claim for damages under FDUTPA has to prove actual damages
Planetary Motion v. Techplosion
261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001) Cited 260 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding posting of software with mark on publicly available website sufficiently widespread use to establish ownership rights in mark
Custom Mfg. v. Midway
508 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2007) Cited 206 times
Holding that Florida unfair competition and trademark infringement use the same likelihood of confusion analysis as the federal Lanham Act test
Shibata v. Lim
133 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2000) Cited 115 times
Holding the express terms of the contract determined the parties' rights and no implied covenant of good faith gap-filler was needed to determine or protect the parties' expectations
Tooltrend, Inc. v. CMT Utensili, SRL
198 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 95 times
Holding that marketing and product-recognition benefits conferred by a distributor on a producer who ended the distribution relationship were incidental to the distributorship and not unjust
Edward Lewis Tobinick v. Novella
848 F.3d 935 (11th Cir. 2017) Cited 43 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the appellants "waived their challenge to the district court's application of California's anti-SLAPP statute based on the Erie doctrine" because they did not raise the issue before the district court
Tobinick v. Novella
142 F. Supp. 3d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2015) Cited 5 times
Explaining that whether a plaintiff and defendant are competitors "is not dispositive of whether the speech at issue constitute 'commercial advertising or promotion'"
Portionpac Chemical Corp. v. Sanitech Systems
217 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (M.D. Fla. 2002) Cited 15 times
No. 8:01-CV1297T17MAP July 25, 2002. Lonnie L. Simpson, Piper Rudnick LLP, Tampa, FL, Barry M. Heller, J.T. Westermeier, John J. Dwyer, Piper Marbury Rudnick Wolfe, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Jeffrey D. Keiner, Mark Nelson Miller, Frank A. Hamner, Nicolette M. Corso, Gray, Harris Robinson, P.A., Orlando, FL, for defendants. ORDER ELIZABETH KOVACHEVICH, Chief Judge, District. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum of

Kci USA, Inc. v. Goad et al

11 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that a private individual seeking a consumer claim for damages under FDUTPA has to prove actual damages

Holding posting of software with mark on publicly available website sufficiently widespread use to establish ownership rights in mark

Holding that Florida unfair competition and trademark infringement use the same likelihood of confusion analysis as the federal Lanham Act test

Holding the express terms of the contract determined the parties' rights and no implied covenant of good faith gap-filler was needed to determine or protect the parties' expectations

Holding that marketing and product-recognition benefits conferred by a distributor on a producer who ended the distribution relationship were incidental to the distributorship and not unjust

Holding that the appellants "waived their challenge to the district court's application of California's anti-SLAPP statute based on the Erie doctrine" because they did not raise the issue before the district court

Explaining that whether a plaintiff and defendant are competitors "is not dispositive of whether the speech at issue constitute 'commercial advertising or promotion'"