The phrase "a finding of infringement" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in legal contexts to refer to a determination that someone has violated a law or regulation, particularly in intellectual property cases.
Example: "The court issued a finding of infringement against the defendant for violating the patent rights of the plaintiff."
Alternatives: "a determination of infringement" or "a ruling of infringement".
In particular, the overwhelming similarities in color choices lean toward a finding of infringement.
But this tracking of a historian's selection of facts generally should not supply the basis for a finding of infringement.
A finding of infringement based on paraphrase generally requires far more close and substantial a tracking of the original language than occurred in this case.
While the commercial nature of defendants' use here weighs heavily against them, it is not necessary for a finding of infringement.
"The mere fact that a use is educational and not for profit does not insulate it from a finding of infringement...
Co., Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 717 F.2d 352, 358-59 (7th Cir.1983) (survey reporting a confusion rate of 7.6% weighed against a finding of infringement).
Boston Scientific, which is based in Natick, Mass., had sought a finding of intentional infringement, which would have allowed Federal District Judge Sue Robinson to triple the damage award.
[C4.] Split Decision for BlackBerry Maker An appeals court upheld a finding of patent infringement against Research In Motion, but struck down part of the ruling and sent it back to a lower court for further proceedings.
In some of the cases described above, the phrases were used for their associative or "endorsement" power and, under those conditions, courts may accept less significant similarities to justify a finding of copyright infringement.
Two rulings are particularly relevant: In 2006, the Court held in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange that granting a permanent injunction on a finding of patent infringement will no longer be automatic, making it harder for patent holders, and sharks in particular, to obtain that relief.
The unusual circumstances of this case also distinguish it from other infringement cases and make a finding of non-infringement appropriate.
