if this lawsuit were to proceed. Over the last sixty years, the defendants have invested over $700 million in advertising, promoting, and marketing their vodka products under the SMIRNOFF name, making the brand the most popular vodka and the second most popular distilled spirit in the United States. In the opinion of the court, this change occurred “because of and as a result of the delay” in filing suit. See Gasser Chair Co., Inc. v. Infanti Chair Mfg. Corp., 60 F.3d 770, 774-75 (Fed.Cir.1995) (citing Hemstreet v. Computer Entry Sys. Corp., 972 F.2d 1290, 1294-95 (Fed.Cir.1992)). Most notably, unlike the Gasser or Hemstreet litigants, the defendants here received no warning that they might have been infringing upon another’s claimed trademark rights. Cf. Hemstreet, 972 F.2d at 1294 (<HOLDING>). And, given the nature of trademark rights and
holding that qui tam relator had right to proceed against county defendant recognizing that receiving explicit notice and specific warning of related actions against other infringers the defendant apparently made a deliberate business decision to ignore that warning and to proceed as if nothing had occurred holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her holding that a plaintiff seeking to establish inducement to infringe must show that the alleged infringers actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements holding that liability for a manufacturer follows only if it knew or should have known of the inherent dangerousness of the product and failed to accompany   it with the quantum of warning which would be calculated to adequately guard against the inherent danger 