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.
8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 53 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 AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick Anchor | green | “the stronger the mark, the more likely it is that encroachment on it will produce confusion.” | 14 |
| 2 | Cae, Incorporated v. Clean Air Engineering, Incorporated | green | “the more widely accessible and inexpensive the products and services, the more likely that consumers will exercise a lesser degree of care and discrimination in their purchases.” | 10 |
| 3 | Cae, Incorporated v. Clean Air Engineering, Incorporated | green | “the 'strength' of a trademark refers to the mark's distinctiveness, meaning its propensity to identify the products or services sold as emanating from a particular source.” | 9 |
| 4 | Platinum Home Mortgage Corporation v. Platinum Financial Group, Incorporated | green | “trademark protection should not interfere with traditional policies of a competitive market.” | 5 |
| 5 | AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick | green | “the strength of a mark usually corresponds to its economic and marketing strength.” | 5 |
| 6 | Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. | green | “the more likely it is the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, the less the balance of irreparable harms need weigh towards its side; the less likely it is the plaintiff will succeed, the more the balance need weigh towards its side.” | 5 |
| 7 | Eli Lilly & Company, an Indiana Corporation v. Natural Answers, Incorporated, a Florida Corporation, and Brian A. Feinstein | green | “enforcement of the trademark laws prevents consumer confusion.” | 3 |
| 8 | Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Phoenix International Software, Inc. | green | “must ask whether consumers, and specifically consumers who would use either product, would be likely to attribute them to a single source.” | 2 |
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.