AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that courts do not \condition infringement on the sale of the parties' respective operations\
• holding that courts do not “condition infringement on the sale of the parties’ respective operations”
• concluding that mark in question had “plenty of ... strength” due to display in “more than 3,000 stores [and] hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of advertising”
• holding that defendants’ familiarity with the automobile industry, AutoZone’s extensive marketing, and similar designs between the two marks demonstrated that the defendant modeled his business to mislead customers into believing they were associated with AutoZone
• holding that the evidence that the plaintiff had spent millions of dollars’ on advertising to promote its mark and that the mark was displayed prominently on thousands of stores nationally was more than sufficient to establish the mark’s strength
• observing that the strength of the plaintiff’s mark was evidenced by its display in thousands of retail outlets nationwide, supported by millions in marketing expenditures, and in use for decades

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).