Cadbury Beverages, Inc. v. Cott Corporation and Cott Beverages Usa, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “wholesale purchasers ... are assumed to be more sophisticated buyers and thus less prone to confusion”
• holding that, despite sophisticated customers, a disputed question of material fact existed on the third factor between competitors offering a similar product
• concluding that market proximity looks at “whether and to what extent the two products compete with each other,” considering “the nature of the products themselves and the structure of the relevant market”
• noting that “the class of customers to whom the goods are sold” is relevant to the proximity inquiry
• concluding, on cross- motions for summary judgment, “neither party is entitled to summary judgment on the record” where dispute of facts existed as to several of the Polaroid Factors
• “[R]ecognizing that subjective issues such as good faith are singularly inappropriate for determination on summary judgment, we decline to hold as a matter of law that the defendants have acted in bad faith.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).