context: As a result, even though the plaintiffs and defendants are "head-to-head" or direct competitors over in Russia, they do not compete at all, whether directly or indirectly, in the United States. Without a commercial presence, the court cannot conclude that the plaintiffs have asserted a legitimate commercial interest to protect or have suffered a tangible competitive harm within the meaning of the Lanham Act.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 52 F.3d 867, 873
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that the plaintiff was not then, nor had ever been, in competition with the defendants at any level
citation_a.sentence: See PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander, 103 F.3d 1105, 1112 (2d Cir.1997) (recognizing that the litigant “d[id] not currently sell a ... product that compete[d] with [his opponent’s] products,” regardless of whether that par ty was acting lawfully or unlawfully); see also Stanfield v. Osborne Indus., Inc., 52 F.3d 867, 873 (10th Cir.1995) (noting that the plaintiff was not then, nor had ever been, in competition with the defendants at any level).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 103 F.3d 1105, 1112
citation_b.parenthetical: recognizing that the litigant "d[id] not currently sell a ... product that compete[d] with [his opponent's] products," regardless of whether that par ty was acting lawfully or unlawfully
citation_b.sentence: See PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander, 103 F.3d 1105, 1112 (2d Cir.1997) (recognizing that the litigant “d[id] not currently sell a ... product that compete[d] with [his opponent’s] products,” regardless of whether that par ty was acting lawfully or unlawfully); see also Stanfield v. Osborne Indus., Inc., 52 F.3d 867, 873 (10th Cir.1995) (noting that the plaintiff was not then, nor had ever been, in competition with the defendants at any level).