Court Opinion

ID: 9837786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:52:59.097169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:30.952376
License: Public Domain

Reinhardt, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
1. I would reject Anhing’s claim that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence pertaining to the amount of damages suffered by Anhing because the jury found no likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks and thus no liability for Viet Phu.
2. I would reject Anhing’s claim that the district court abused its discretion by denying a request for a bench trial because the Supreme Court has rejected a right to a bench trial even where only equitable relief is sought. See Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510 & n.17, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959) (citing Hurwitz v. Hurwitz, 136 F.2d 796, 798-99 (D.C. Cir. 1943)); cf. Fitzgerald v. U.S. Lines Co., 374 U.S. 16, 20, 83 S.Ct. 1646, 10 L.Ed.2d 720 (1963).
3.I fully agree with the majority’s disposition regarding Anhing’s remaining arguments and Viet Phu’s cross-appeal.