Search for: "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, interested parties" Results 701 - 720 of 1,438
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Aug 2014, 10:30 am by Bruce Colbath
  The Court emphasized that in light of this direct competition, that Gnosis’ falsely advertised folate product cost less than Merck’s Metafolin exacerbated the extent of injury to Merck.[9] Thus, in the most interesting facet of the Second Circuit’s decision, it held that when “a plaintiff has met its burden of proving deliberate deception in the context of a two-player market, it is appropriate to utilize a presumption of injury. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 10:38 am by Bruce Colbath
  The Court emphasized that in light of this direct competition, that Gnosis’ falsely advertised folate product cost less than Merck’s Metafolin exacerbated the extent of injury to Merck.[9] Thus, in the most interesting facet of the Second Circuit’s decision, it held that when “a plaintiff has met its burden of proving deliberate deception in the context of a two-player market, it is appropriate to utilize a presumption of injury. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 6:00 am by Tim Sitzmann
I purchased these guys about a year and a half ago: Making a direct comparison, there are certainly similarities. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 5:25 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Quality, that Second Circuit makeweight, managed to favor TIII as well (though deserved little weight) because the quality differences between the parties’ products made confusion less likely.Consumer sophistication: NECA’s predecessor-in-interest, responding to the PTO’s initial rejection of its application to register the WIZKIDS mark based on the registered third-party mark “WIX-KIDS” for toy vehicles, argued that the “consumers of… [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 5:00 pm by Eric Goldman
Though the court found that consumers were likely to use a high level of care in making such an expensive purchase, there were “scenarios in which confusion [was] likely”: Suppose a potential range customer is at a dinner party and the hostess tells the potential customer how much the hostess enjoys her range. [read post]
14 Apr 2014, 3:04 am by Peter Mahler
In June 2009, a majority of the shareholders voted to elect a five-member board, two seats on which were taken by the then-owners of the unit purchased by plaintiff the following year. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 12:33 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  It’s true that SPD will have to get the FDA’s permission to change its label, but this isn’t a preemption case, and preclusion involves different interests. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 9:19 am by Bruce E. Boyden
They deal with separate issues, but they’re all related in a way — they all deal with the liabilities of ancillary parties to some sort of infringement. [read post]
16 Jan 2023, 8:01 am by Kevin LaCroix
” When the plaintiff purchased the SPAC’s stock, “neither company had acknowledged they were in discussion, let along indicated that a merger was likely. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 2:03 pm by Kevin LaCroix
I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 8:40 am by MBettman
Parma Bd. of Education, 44 Ohio App. 3d 169 (8th Dist. 1988) (“[a]s a general rule contract claims survive the death of the plaintiff. [read post]
27 Jul 2013, 3:40 pm by Stephen Bilkis
For a variety of reasons, such directness of relationship is one of the essential elements of Clayton Act causation. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 10:33 am by Travis Crabtree
Rosetta Stone countered with evidence of purchasers who believed they were purchasing Rosetta Stone software on the sites of authorized resellers, but received counterfiet programs instead. [read post]