About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - August 2020)

handle is hein.ali/retuc0510 and id is 1 raw text is: UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D CHAPTER 1. THE FREEDOM TO COMPETE § 1. General Principles C.A.D.C.2020. Cit. in disc. (erron. cit. as Restatement Third of Torts). Restaurant owner brought claims of unfair competition against the President of the United States and limited-liability company that operated a hotel business held in trust for the sole benefit of the President, alleging that limited-liability company unfairly drew away plaintiff's customers by exploiting the surname of the President on the hotel business's name. After removal to federal court, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. This court affirmed, holding that the District of Columbia did not recognize unfair-competition claims based on a person using their political prestige to enhance the success of his or her businesses. The court observed that plaintiff was unable to cite any caselaw recognizing the basis for his claims and only pointed to passages from Restatement Second of Torts §§ 539 and 540 and Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1 in asserting that the common law was evolving to favor fairness and commercial morality in trade. K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office LLC, 951 F.3d 503, 510. CHAPTER 3. THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS TOPIC 3. INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS § 22. Proof of Likelihood of Confusion: Intent of the Actor E.D.N.Y.2018. Com. (c) quot. in case quot. in sup. Owner of various trademarks containing the word BOLD brought a lawsuit against competitors, alleging that defendants sold competing bathroom- fixture products using a text logo with the word BOLD that infringed on plaintiff's trademarks. This court adopted the recommendation of a magistrate judge and granted in part plaintiff's motion for default judgment on other grounds, holding, inter alia, that defendants' continued use of plaintiff's marks did not support an inference that they did so with the intent to confuse. The court quoted Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 22, Comment c, and Restatement of Torts § 729, Comment f, in observing that defendants' continued use of the marks did not conclusively prove defendants' intent to create confusion, but provided evidence suggesting that defendants knew their infringing use could create confusion under the current market conditions. Kohler Co. v. Bold International FZCO, 422 F.Supp.3d 681, 728. CHAPTER 4. APPROPRIATION OF TRADE VALUES TOPIC 2. TRADE SECRETS § 45. Monetary Relief: Appropriation of Trade Secrets COPYRIGHT ©2020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.