Aveda Corp. v. Evita Marketing, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing auditory similarities between two marks at summary judgment where the plaintiff had linguistic expert evidence that the marks were pronounced similarly
• \The courts and the trademark board both view charges of fraud in the registration of a trademark as a disfavored defense.\
• “[R]ights in trademarks are not gained through discovery or invention of the mark, but only through actual use.”
• likelihood of confusion present for marks “Aveda” and “Avita” for hair care products

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).