73 Cited authorities

Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler
464 U.S. 67 (1983) Cited 686 times
Holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases
Dairy Queen v. Wood
369 U.S. 469 (1962) Cited 1,151 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that jury trial was required where legal claims seeking monetary relief and equitable claims seeking injunctive relief both hinged on "the question of whether there [had] been a breach of contract"
TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc.
653 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 725 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"
Allee v. Medrano
416 U.S. 802 (1974) Cited 463 times
Holding "a named plaintiff cannot acquire standing to sue by bringing his action on behalf of others who suffered injury which would have afforded them standing had they been named plaintiffs; it bears repeating that a person cannot predicate standing on injury which he does not share."
Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co.
108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 681 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants cannot be liable for false advertising when they were not "responsible for disseminating the offending advertisements"
Novartis Consumer Health v. Johnson Johnson
290 F.3d 578 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 543 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court erred "in finding that a message of superior efficacy is necessarily implied" by defendant's advertising and "[i]nstead, [plaintiff] should have been required to prove through a consumer survey that the name and advertising actually misled or had a tendency to mislead consumers"
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
S R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Intern., Inc.
968 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1992) Cited 387 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that because franchisee defendant was using the franchisor plaintiff's mark, "there is no question ... that their concurrent use is highly likely to cause consumer confusion."
S. Cal. Darts Ass'n v. Zaffina
762 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 202 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding unlawful use defense failed, in part, because"[e]ven assuming that [plaintiff] unlawfully failed to pay taxes, its misconduct would be unrelated to the purpose of the federal trademark laws and, therefore, collateral and immaterial."
J. J. Vision Care v. 1-800 Contacts
299 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 268 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
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,291 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"
Section 1117 - Recovery for violation of rights
15 U.S.C. § 1117 Cited 4,891 times 144 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts significant discretion to award damages for a violation of § 1125
Section 285 - Attorney fees
35 U.S.C. § 285 Cited 3,199 times 476 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases
Section 1116 - Injunctive relief
15 U.S.C. § 1116 Cited 2,715 times 29 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts the "power to grant injunctions, according to principles of equity . . ., to prevent the violation of any right" of the trademark owner

Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Company et al

73 Cited authorities

Holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases

Holding that jury trial was required where legal claims seeking monetary relief and equitable claims seeking injunctive relief both hinged on "the question of whether there [had] been a breach of contract"

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"

Holding "a named plaintiff cannot acquire standing to sue by bringing his action on behalf of others who suffered injury which would have afforded them standing had they been named plaintiffs; it bears repeating that a person cannot predicate standing on injury which he does not share."

Holding that defendants cannot be liable for false advertising when they were not "responsible for disseminating the offending advertisements"

Holding that movant seeking a preliminary injunction has a heavy burden

Holding that because franchisee defendant was using the franchisor plaintiff's mark, "there is no question ... that their concurrent use is highly likely to cause consumer confusion."

Finding unlawful use defense failed, in part, because"[e]ven assuming that [plaintiff] unlawfully failed to pay taxes, its misconduct would be unrelated to the purpose of the federal trademark laws and, therefore, collateral and immaterial."

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

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Granting district courts significant discretion to award damages for a violation of § 1125

Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

Granting district courts the "power to grant injunctions, according to principles of equity . . ., to prevent the violation of any right" of the trademark owner