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.
4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 28 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 Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc. Anchor | green | “the application of the polaroid test is 'not mechanical, but rather, focuses on the ultimate question of whether, looking at the products in their totality, consumers are likely to be confused.” | 11 |
| 2 | Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc. | green | “the application of the polaroid test is not mechanical, but rather, focuses on the ultimate question of whether, looking at the products in their totality, consumers are likely to be confused.” | 8 |
| 3 | Estee Lauder Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. The Gap, Inc. D/B/A Old Navy Clothing Company, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant | green | “a plaintiff must show (1) that it has a valid mark that is entitled to protection under the act, and (2) that use of the defendant's mark infringes, or is likely to infringe, the mark of the plaintiff,” | 5 |
| 4 | Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc. | green | “not mechanical, but rather, focuses on the ultimate question of whether, looking at the products in their totality, consumers are likely to be confused.” | 4 |
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.