Amstar Corporation v. Domino's Pizza, Inc. And Atlanta Pizza, Inc., Pizza Enterprises, Inc. And Pizza Services, Inc., Hanna Creative Enterprises, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there is minimal similarity between a company that sells pizza and a company that manufactures sugar, salt, mustard, ketchup and other condiments
• holding that there was no evidence of intent because even though the junior user was aware of Domino sugar, he was simply shortening the prior name of the restaurant
• holding that widespread use of DOMINO across many industries weighed against mark strength
• holding that the mark “Domino,” while it may be arbitrary, was not coined or fanciful and thus was entitled to less protection
• holding that company that sold pizza did not sell similar products as seller of sugar; the only similarity was that sugar and pizza were both edible
• noting that the “substantial dissimilarities between the predominant purchasers of plaintiff’s and defendant’s products” lessen the possibility of confusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).