§Why CasetextPricing

North Face Apparel Corp., The v. Williams Pharmacy, Inc., et al.

MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

27 Cited authorities

  1. Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.

    640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981)   Cited 2,599 times
    Holding that issuance of a preliminary injunction depends upon a "flexible" consideration of the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; balancing this harm with any injury an injunction would inflict on other interested parties; the probability that the moving party would succeed on the merits; and the effect on the public interest

  2. 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

  3. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.

    109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 236 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an account of the O.J. Simpson murder trial titled The Cat NOT in the Hat! borrowed Dr. Seuss's trademark and poetic style only " ‘to get attention’ or maybe even ‘to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh.’ "

  4. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd.

    604 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1979)   Cited 334 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an injunction pursuant to the Lanham Act was not a prior restraint because trademark infringement implicated property rights, not speech rights

  5. 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

  6. Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity

    507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)   Cited 118 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding "Chewy Vuiton" dog toys not to infringe on the venerable handbag maker's trademark

  7. U.S. v. Torkington

    812 F.2d 1347 (11th Cir. 1987)   Cited 167 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that in Lanham Act cases the audience for the likelihood of confusion test "includes individuals who are potential purchasers of the trademark holder[']s goods as well as those who are potential direct purchasers of the allegedly counterfeit goods."

  8. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Rauh Rubber, Inc.

    130 F.3d 1305 (8th Cir. 1997)   Cited 103 times
    Finding that "[t]he $100,000 bond is a security device, not a limit on the damages [that the defendants] . . . may obtain against [the plaintiff] if the facts warrant such an award."

  9. Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok International Ltd.

    998 F.2d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 111 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court, in determining whether accused shoes infringed footwear manufacturer's trademarks and trade dress, had abused its discretion in failing to consider adequately the extent of post-sale confusion between the competing footwear

  10. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications

    28 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 94 times
    Finding that the district court's consideration of First Amendment concerns in its likelihood-of-confusion analysis caused it to hold the plaintiff to a higher standard than required to prove trademark infringement

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

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,276 times   320 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 1114 - Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers

    15 U.S.C. § 1114   Cited 7,908 times   88 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable "Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant — use in commerce any reproduction . . . of a registered mark . . . in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion."

  13. Section 1057 - Certificates of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1057   Cited 1,020 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of an owner's right to use the mark

  14. Section 417.061 - Injunctive relief, when - order for payment to owner of mark - destruction of counterfeit marks

    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.061   Cited 41 times

    1. Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid at common law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion as to the source of goods or services. 2. Any owner of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066 may proceed by suit to enjoin the manufacturer, use