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.
7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 52 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 Uncommon, LLC v. Spigen, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Uncommon, LLC v. Spigen, Inc. Anchor | green | “(1) the similarity between the marks; (2) the similarity of the products; (3) the area and manner of concurrent use; (4) the degree of care consumers are likely to use; (5) the strength of plaintiff's mark; (6) actual consumer confusion; and (7) the defendant's intent to 'palm o…” | 16 |
| 2 | Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated | green | “a product design that is so distinctive it identifies the product's source.” | 6 |
| 3 | NBA Properties, Incorporated v. HANWJH | green | “requires the plaintiff to show 'a likelihood of confusion,' a question of fact in which 'actual confusion' is but a single nondispositive part.” | 6 |
| 4 | United States v. Descamps | green | “whether that was due to an oversight or a conclusion that the issue was not properly raised, we do not know. ... we therefore choose to decide the question-which was fully briefed before us-rather than declaring it forfeited.” | 6 |
| 5 | GEFT Outdoor, LLC v. Monroe County Indiana | green | “we review the district court's decision to grant a permanent injunction for an abuse of discretion, though we conduct an independent review of any underlying legal determinations.” | 6 |
| 6 | Tri-Plex Technical Services, Ltd. v. Jon-Don, LLC | green | “likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding” | 6 |
| 7 | Charles Curry, Jr. v. Revolution Laboratories, LLC | green | “curry did not need to file separate suits in all 50 states to vindicate his lanham act rights.” | 6 |
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.