Chicago Title v. Magnuson

2 Citing cases

  1. LidoChem, Inc. v. Stoller Enterprises, Inc.

    No. 10-1686 (6th Cir. Sep. 12, 2012)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding a reasonable factfinder could determine that the defendant's statements to a single farmer and a single distributor were disseminated widely enough to the relevant purchasing public to constitute promotion within the "relatively small" western-Michigan farm-chemical industry

    novo review though has never meant the appellate court starts over. Rather, it means the appellate court takes the facts as presented to the court below and reviews whether summary judgment is justified without giving special deference to the decision below. See, e.g., Chicago Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir. 2007) (stating on summary judgment review that Sixth Circuit looks at factual record as presented by the non-movant to district court); 1 Steven Alan Childress & Martha S. Davis, Federal Standards of Review ยง 2.14 (3d ed. 1999) ("[W]hat is meant [by de novo review] is merely appellate power, ability, and competency to come to a different conclusion on the record as determined below.") (emphasis added)

  2. Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow

    717 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2013)   Cited 103 times
    Holding flea market operator facilitated infringement by continuing to rent spaces to vendors that he know, or should have known, were engaging in infringing activity

    We review the partial summary judgment ruling on contributory liability de novo based on the record as it existed at the time of the ruling. Chicago Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir.2007). The Lanham Act protects registered copyrights, trademarks, and patents.