A WORD OF EXPLANATION
"court records" presented here (which have dates in the year
2007 in the title (e.g. 8-23 to signify August 23, 2007) to indicate that
they are simulated court records) are not always pretty. They are meant
to be read - for those interested in the detail they provide- for content,
and for the insight they provide as to what actually happens in courts.
They were not created to make them look like real court records in form,
although the intent was to make the content fit the facts we created.
The purpose is not to present a verbatim report of an actual case but
to use the fictional case to illustrate aspects of trademark law in a
close to real life setting.
Further, real court documents typically contain format conventions which are stylistic only, and have no substantive significance. Those format conventions have been omitted. Similarly, paragraph numbering conventions have occasionally been modified where the modifications have no substantive significance.
Finally, one can look at a lawsuit from polar positions: who won and who lost at the one extreme and to clinically analyze points of law on the other.
We're not concerned here with winners and losers. We are concerned with a number of points of law, but rather than present one side's view of all of them separately from the other's (as is typically done in legal briefs), we will occasionally combine the brief arguments so that the two sides arguments on a single point are presented side by side. Perhaps because real people live through cases such as this case, however, we hope the case will be perceived in a human context, rather than as pure analysis.
One other note: after the case is fully set forth, we intend to insert hyperlinks which provide analysis of the situation at the particular point where the link occurs. Those links will be accessed by clicking on the word analysis.
Let's move on to the cease and desist letter which put the case in motion.
(c) Copyright 2010-2014 Milliken PLC