Brockmeyer v. HEARTS CORP.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “the plaintiff had ample opportunity to come forward with evidence of actual confusion” where defendant’s product was in distribution for over two years
• finding “no evidence of any consumer confusion” where defendants’ survey showed a confusion rate of less than 3%
• the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s magazines were sold in the same retail outlets, but were “unlikely to appear in physical proximity to each other at such outlets,” which favored the defendant
• “no basis from which to infer any bad faith,” despite defendant’s awareness of plaintiffs mark, where defendant “made a good faith determination [that] using [its] mark ... would not infringe any other mark” and ultimately obtained registration from the PTO

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).