Legal Opinion

Worthington v. Anderson

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided October 13, 2004No. 03-4233PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PORFILIO, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal, we consider the scope of the “unclean hands” defense to an action for trademark infringement. 1 Appellants Gary Worthington and Colleen Worthing-ton appeal from the district court’s order dismissing, after a bench trial, their action against the defendants for federal and common law trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, misrepresentation and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and conspiracy. 2 The district court concluded that the Worthing-tons’ claims against the defendants (referred to collectively here as the “Andersons”)…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
  3. Merrill Lynch Business Financial Services, Inc. v. NudellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
  4. Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
  5. Kenman Engineering v. City of UnionCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.Com, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
  2. Saldivar v. RodelaDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2012
  3. Helton v. ReedWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Ward Hardwood Floor Service, Inc. v. Jenkins (In Re Jenkins)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · 2010
  5. In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn LitigationDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2017

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API