Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. First Care, P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that no evidence of actual confusion over the course of nine years “creates a strong inference that there is no likelihood of confusion” (citation omitted)
• finding that “evidence of extensive third-party use” demonstrated the disputed mark’s lack of commercial strength
• finding that 3 out of 130 respondents—or a “confusion rate of 2 percent”—-was “hardly a sufficient showing of actual confusion”
• noting that such stark differences in spending reflect dissimilarity in advertising
• finding in a trademark case that “the absence of any evidence of actual confusion . . . creates a strong inference that there is no likelihood of confusion”
• affirming summary judgment for the defendant where no factor supported a likelihood of confusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).