About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations (March 2016 through June 2016) [i] (2016)

handle is hein.ali/retuc0502 and id is 1 raw text is: UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D CHAPTER 1. THE FREEDOM TO COMPETE § 1. General Principles D.Ariz.2015. Com. (g) quot. in case quot. in disc. Financial advisor and his insurance agency brought claims for, among other things, unfair competition against competitor and former agency employees who left to work for competitor, alleging that defendants committed computer fraud, trespass, conversion, and other illegal acts in an effort to gain an unfair competitive advantage over plaintiff. This court granted, with leave to amend, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for unfair competition, holding that Arizona did not appear to recognize a common-law claim for unfair competition as alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. The court noted that, although Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1 specified that methods of unfair competition that could potentially give rise to liability included a residual category encompassing unfair business practices, the Arizona Supreme Court had held that the universal test for unfair competition was whether the public was likely to be confused. Joshua David Mellberg LLC v. Will, 96 F.Supp.3d 953, 961, 962. S.D.Iowa, 2015. Cit. but not fol., subsecs. (a) and (b) quot. in disc., com. (g) quot. in disc. and cit. in case cit. in disc. Telecommunications company brought an unfair-competition claim against local- exchange carriers in connection with defendants' revenue-sharing agreements with free-conferencing- service companies. This court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for unfair competition under Iowa law, because plaintiff failed to allege that defendants or the free-conferencing-service companies were plaintiff's competitors, or that defendants were responsible for product confusion. The court rejected plaintiff's request that it adopt the definition of unfair competition found in Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1, which defined the tort in broader terms than Iowa law, noting that the Iowa Supreme Court had set forth the elements of the tort without looking to the Restatement. Qwest Communications Co. v. Aventure Communications Technology, LLC, 86 F.Supp.3d 933, 1007-1008,1010. W.D.Pa.2015. Cit. in sup. (general cite). Manufacturer of protective packaging and reflective insulation brought claims for, among other things, unfair competition against distributor of specialty building products in connection with defendant's alleged improper use of plaintiff s trademarks. After a bench trial, this court held that defendant was liable to plaintiff on plaintiff's federal and state-law claims for unfair competition. In making its decision, the court noted that the Pennsylvania common-law tort of unfair competition was coextensive with the definition set forth in the Restatement Third of Unfair Competition. Covertech Fabricating, Inc. v. TVM Bldg. Products, Inc., 124 F.Supp.3d 489, 538. CHAPTER 2. DECEPTIVE MARKETING § 3. Commercial Detriment of Another A L I For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most