green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.1 score
“the greater the number of identical or more or less similar trade-marks (sic) already in use on different kinds of goods, the less is the likelihood of confusion”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
American Cyanamid Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
the greater the number of identical or more or less similar trade-marks (sic) already in use on different kinds of goods, the less is the likelihood of confusion
discussed
Cited "see"
ADT, LLC v. Capital Connect, Inc.
See Amsta r Corporation v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.) (holding that actual confusion evidence is the “best evidence of likelihood of confusion”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). b.
discussed
Cited "see"
Step Co. v. Consumer Direct, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263-64 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 *967 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange, Inc., 628 F.2d 500, 506 (5th Cir.1980). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sterling Drug, Incorporated v. Bayer Ag
See Kiki Undies Corp. v. Promenade Hosiery Mills, Inc., 411 F.2d 1097, 1100 (2d Cir.1969), cert. dismissed, 396 U.S. 1054 , 90 S.Ct. 707 , 24 L.Ed.2d 698 (1970). 4 Citing Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980), Bayer AG argues that Sterling's survey represented a mere "word association" test, and was therefore not probative.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. True
See United States v. Redding, supra. Cf. United States v. Browers, supra. Its effect in the present case can be more readily equated with other remedies such as dismissal (see United States v. Gonzales, 617 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980)) or exclusion of the Government’s expert evidence (see United States v. Presser, supra) which were otherwise available and subject to appeal.
discussed
Cited "see"
G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc.
See Amstar Corporation v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corporation, 533 F.Supp. 75 , 77-78 n. 4 (S.D.Fla.1981), aff' d, 716 F.2d 854 (11th Cir.1983). 40.
cited
Cited "see"
Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. v. Pizza Caesar, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Telesforo Fernandez & Hno., Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir.) (72 third party uses led to weak protection), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Sun Banks of Florida, Inc., 651 F.2d at 316 (4400 uses in Florida alone led to weak protection).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ambrit, Inc., F/k/a the Isaly Company, Inc., Cross v. Kraft, Inc., Cross-Appellee
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir.) (72 third party uses led to weak protection), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Sun Banks of Florida, Inc., 651 F.2d at 316 (4400 uses in Florida alone led to weak protection).
cited
Cited "see"
Freedom Savings and Loan Association, Counterclaim/defendant v. Vernon Way, Jr., D/B/A Freedom Realty, Counterclaim/plaintiff
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Comidas Exquisitos, Inc. v. Carlos McGee's Mexican Cafe, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); beef & brew, inc. v. BEEF & BREW, INC., 389 F.Supp. 179, 186 (D.Or.1974); McCarthy § 23:35.
discussed
Cited "see"
Falcon Rice Mill, Inc. v. Community Rice Mill, Inc. And James Vidrine
Although Falcon asserts four causes of action, the underlying issue is the same in each: are Community’s packages so similar to Falcon’s that they create a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products? 6 “[T]he basic test under every type of ‘unfair competition’ is the ‘likelihood of confusion’ test.” Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., 5 Cir. 1981, 659 F.2d 695, 703 , cert. denied, 1982, 457 U.S. 1126 , 102 S.Ct. 2947 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1342 ; accord, Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 5 Cir., 615 F.2d 252, 265 , cert. *344 denied, 1980, 449 U…
discussed
Cited "see"
Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Co., Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Plaintiff v. Suave Shoe Corporation, a Florida Corporation
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 264 (5th Cir.1980) (“The appropriate universe should include a fair sampling of those purchasers most likely to partake of the alleged infringer’s goods or services.”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); cf. American Basketball Association v. AMF Voit, Inc., 358 F.Supp. 981, 986 (S.D.N.Y.) (discounting survey which allegedly demonstrated that red, white and blue basketballs had acquired secondary meaning, in part because plaintiff’s survey universe, males between 12 and 23 years old who had playe…
discussed
Cited "see"
ChiChi's Inc. v. Chi-Mex, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978); Scarves by Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd., 544 F.2d 1167, 1173 (2d Cir.1976); Scott v. Mego International, Inc., 519 F.Supp. 1118, 1128-35 (D.Minn.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Shakey's Incorporated v. Isabel Covalt, Covalt Enterprises, Inc., Pi Arn Squared, Inc., D/B/A Suspenders Pizza, Fred Jansen, and Sande Dahl, Shakey's Incorporated v. Isabel Covalt, Covalt Enterprises, Inc., Pi Arn Squared, Inc., D/B/A Suspenders Pizza, Fred Jansen, and Sande Dahl
See, Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980) 7 Shakey's correctly points out that, under Oregon law, when there is evidence of actual confusion among consumers, the court may not rule that competing tradenames are dissimilar as a matter of law.
cited
Cited "see"
Shakey's Inc. v. Covalt
See, Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). .
cited
Cited "see"
American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass'n
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 258-59 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Boston Professional Hockey, supra, at 1010.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Tariq
See United States v. Gonzales, 617 F.2d 1358, 1363 (9 Cir. 1980) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lane Capital Management, Inc. v. Lane Capital Management, Inc.
See, e.g., Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.) (“Domino” not primarily merely surname), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Fisher Radio Corp. v. Bird Elec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. American Cinema Editors, Inc.
Compare Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259-60 , 205 USPQ 969 , 975-76 (5th Cir.) (no confusion likely between DOMINO for sugar and DOMINO for pizza services in presence of third party use), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980) with In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB 1988) (confusion likely between restaurant services and a mustard sold under MUCKY DUCK mark with no presence of third party use).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American United Life Insurance v. American United Insurance
See Jellibeans, Inc. v. Skating Clubs of Georgia, Inc., 716 F.2d 833, 840 (11th Cir.1983); see also Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259-264 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oreck Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. U.S. Floor Systems, Inc., Cross-Appellee
As this court observed in Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange, 628 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1980), “The greater the number of identical or more or less similar trade-marks already in use on different kinds of goods, the less is the likelihood of confusion.” Id. at 504 (quoting Restatement of Torts § 729, comment g (1938)); see also Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, 615 F.2d 252, 259-60 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
University of Georgia Athletic Association, Etc. v. Bill Laite, Individually and D/B/A Bill Laite Distributing Co.
See, e.g., Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 258-59 (5th Cir.) (test for deceptive trade practice and unfair competition under Georgia law same as test for false designation of origin under Lan-ham Act, namely, “whether defendants' use of the mark ... is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Rolls-Royce Motors, Ltd. v. A & A Fiberglass, Inc., 428 F.Supp. 689, 693-94 (N.D.Ga.1976) (Georgia trademark statute "is, both in structure and purpose, similar to its federal counterpart,” and federal…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conan Properties, Inc. v. Conans Pizza, Inc.
See, e.g., Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 258 (5th Cir.) (likelihood of confusion test applies to common law unfair competition claims as well as to claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 (1), 1125(a)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kroblin v. RDR Motels, Inc.
See, e.g., Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 258 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Chicopee Manufacturing Corp. v. Kendall Co., 288 F.2d 719, 724-25 (4th Cir.) cert. denied, 368 U.S. 825 , 82 S.Ct. 44 , 7 L.Ed.2d 29 , (1961) (counsel’s preparation of opinion, without notice to opposing party, may amount to denial of due process).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wsm, Incorporated v. Dennis E. Hilton and Country Shindig Opry, Inc.
See also Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 265 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980) (interpreting the Georgia anti-dilution statute); Community Federal Savings & Loan Assoc, v. Orondorff, 678 F.2d 1034, 1037 (11th Cir.1982) (interpreting the Florida anti-dilution statute).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wendy's International Inc. v. Big Bite, Inc.
See Frisch’s, 670 F.2d at 648, n. 5; see also, Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 264, n. 13 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980) (suggesting that a consumer confusion level of 6.8% may be significant); but cf. Dr. Pepper Co. v. Sambo’s Restaurants, Inc., supra, 517 F.Supp. at 1205-1206, n. 5 (suggesting that an 8% figure may not be significant).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Plus Products v. Plus Discount Foods, Inc.
See also Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 439 F.Supp. 1022, 1043-44 (D.Del.1977), rev’d on other grounds, 589 F.2d 1225 (3d Cir. 1978). 8 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Amstar Corp.
v.
Domino's Pizza, Inc.
v.
Domino's Pizza, Inc.
No. 80-155.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 14, 1980.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.