5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 35 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from No. 01-56055.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No. 01-56055 Anchor | green | “1) the strength of the mark; 2) proximity or relatedness of the goods; 3) the similarity of 4 the marks; 4) evidence of actual confusion; 5) the marketing channels used; 6) the degree 5 of care customers are likely to exercise in purchasing the goods; 7) the defendant's intent 6…” | 7 |
| 2 | No. 01-56055 | green | “likelihood of confusion exists when consumers viewing the mark 22 would probably assume that the goods it represents are associated with the source of a 1 different product identified by a similar mark.” | 7 |
| 3 | Reno Air Racing Association, Inc. v. Jerry McCord | green | “is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to 13 deceive” | 7 |
| 4 | Fendi Adele S.R.L. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. | green | “to find a likelihood of confusion, a 12 court need only determine that the items at issue are counterfeit and that the defendant 13 distributed, offered for sale, or sold the items.” | 7 |
| 5 | Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Castworld Products, Inc. | green | “must 'prove 16 up' the amount of damages that it is claiming.” | 7 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.