Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Cross-Appellant v. mcneil-p.p.c., Inc., Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that despite similar trade dress elements, \the prominence of the trade names on the two packages weighs heavily against a finding of consumer confusion\
• stating that “the question is not how many points of similarity exist between the two [products],” but, rather, the general impression conveyed
• finding that despite similar trade dress elements, “the prominence of the trade names on the two packages weighs heavily against a finding of consumer confusion”
• stating that secondary meaning assesses whether “the consuming public primarily associates” the mark with the plaintiff
• stating that “presence and prominence of markings tending to dispel confusion as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of the goods in question ... can go far towards eliminating any possible confusion”
• nothing that among the factors relevant to the strength of the mark inquiry “are advertising expenditures, consumer studies, sales success, unsolicited media coverage, attempts to plagiarize and length and exclusivity of use.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).