Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 42 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 Tiffany v. Costco.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tiffany v. Costco Anchor | green | “under the lanham act, a plaintiff alleging trademark infringement must demonstrate that (1) 'it has a valid mark that is entitled to protection' and that (2) the defendant's 'actions are likely to cause confusion with that mark.” | 26 |
| 2 | Car-Freshner Corporation v. American Covers, LLC | green | “advertising expenditures, consumer studies linking the mark to a source, unsolicited media coverage of the product, sales success, attempts to plagiarize the mark, and the length and exclusivity of the mark's use.” | 11 |
| 3 | Car-Freshner Corporation v. American Covers, LLC | green | “is analyzed based on two components: (1) the degree to which the mark is inherently distinctive; and (2) the degree to which it is distinctive in the marketplace.” | 5 |
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.