Big O Tire Dealers, Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that twenty-five percent of the amount the defendant spent on advertising is an appropriate amount to award a plaintiff for prospective corrective advertising
• finding that discussions had not crystallized to the point of threatened litigation, a clear cut-off point, and were therefore simply “business communications”
• comparing “trademark disparagement” claim to Colorado’s “slander of title,” which requires a false statement, malice, and special damages
• remitting corrective- advertising award to the amount “necessary to place [the plaintiff] in the position it was in before” the defendant began its unfair advertising
• jury could find reverse confusion where large junior user’s multi-million-dollar nationwide advertising campaign overpowered small senior user’s mark
• reverse confusion occurs where \infringer's use of plaintiff's mark results in confusion as to origin of plaintiff's product\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).