9 Cited authorities

  1. Central Hudson Gas Elec. v. Public Serv. Comm'n

    447 U.S. 557 (1980)   Cited 1,900 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on commercial speech must directly advance a substantial governmental interest
  2. Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer

    403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 161 times
    Holding that there was no liability where an unsatisfied hair transplant customer had used Bosley's mark for purposes of criticism, because the customer's "use of the Bosley mark [was] not in connection with a sale of goods or services—it [was] in connection with the expression of his opinion about Bosley's goods and services"
  3. Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp.

    378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 94 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that initial interest confusion occurs when a defendant uses a plaintiff's trademark in a way calculated to capture a consumer's attention and divert the consumer to the defendant's own Web site
  4. In re Anonymous Online Speakers

    661 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 68 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding disclosure with respect to identity of three non-party anonymous speakers who allegedly made defamatory statements about plaintiff, which formed predicate of plaintiff's claims against a business competitor for tortious interference
  5. Dendrite International v. Doe No. 3

    342 N.J. Super. 134 (N.J. Super. 2001)   Cited 81 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding that this test was a "flexible, non-technical, fact sensitive mechanism for courts to use as a means of ensuring that plaintiffs do not use discovery procedures to ascertain identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet."
  6. United We Stand America, Inc. v. United We Stand, America New York, Inc.

    128 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that the Lanham Act's reference to "use in commerce" extends to all activities within the scope of the Constitution's commerce clause
  7. Highfields Capital Management, L.P. v. Doe

    385 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that identity of individual who anonymously posted derogatory comments about a company on an online message board was protected from disclosure under the First Amendment
  8. White v. City of San Diego

    605 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 51 times
    Agreeing with its earlier statement that "statistical evidence derived from an extremely small universe, as in the present case, has little predictive value and must be disregarded."
  9. Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification

    15 U.S.C. § 1051   Cited 3,434 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Requiring for use-based registration "such number of specimens or facsimiles of the mark as used as may be required by the Director"