Astra Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the \broad inference\ that both parties operated in the \medical or health care field\ was - 13 - insufficient to support likelihood of confusion
• enumerating the Pignons test, noting these factors are “to be used as guides in assessing the likelihood of confusion”
• considering sophisticated hospital personnel to be the relevant market for a computerized blood analyzer machine at issue
• enumerating the Pignons test, noting these factors are “to be used as guides in assessing the likelihood of confusion”
• enumerating the Pignons test, noting these are “to be used as guides in assessing the likelihood of confusion” (emphasis added)
• stating, “[i]f likelihood of confusion exists, it must be based on the confusion of some relevant person”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).