finding willful blindness when defendant bought obviously poorly crafted goods from an intinerant peddler at bargain-basement prices
How later courts described this case
- finding willful blindness when defendant bought obviously poorly crafted goods from an intinerant peddler at bargain-basement prices
- willful blindness established in spite of a shopkeeper’s later disavowal of a stipulation that she knowingly sold counterfeit merchandise because shopkeeper must have known that the expensive brand-name goods were unlikely to display poor workmanship and cheap materials or be sold by itinerant peddlers at bargain-basement prices
- finding willful blindness when defendant failed to inquire further out of fear of the result of his inquiry
- remarking that knowledge of registration is not an essential ingredient in a civil Lanham Act case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The proper functioning of our judicial system requires that we recognize consistently the appropriate relationship between our court and the district courts whose judgments we are required to review. If I had been the district judge, I might have reached, on this record, the conclusion reached by my brothers today. However, as an appellate judge, I cannot say that the district court committed reversible error when it determined that, despite the stipulation and the pretrial order, the wilfullness of the violation was tried by consent of the parties after the defendants had obtained new counsel. Luria Bros. & Co. v. Alliance Assur. Co., 780 F.2d 1082 , 1089 (2d Cir.1986); Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 368 (9th Cir.1985). Nor am I willing to substitute my own judgment for that of the trial judge on crucial matters of credibility — especially where those credibility determinations are so explicitly detailed. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 , 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1512 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the district court.