Champions Golf Club, Inc. v. The Champions Golf Club, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that expansion was relevant because it could lead to further actual confusion
• explaining that “[a] suggestive term is considered stronger than one that is merely descriptive,” albeit not as strong as an arbitrary or fanciful mark
• applying same two-tiered standard of review to ques tion of likelihood of confusion between two trademarks
• noting that mark similarity \is a factor entitled to considerable weight\
• explaining that it was “not particularly significant” that golfers were unlikely to be confused about which course they were playing on, as the “relevant question” was whether a golfer “would likely be confused about affiliation between the two clubs”
• finding potential confusion resulting from expansion where both parties—local golf clubs—had already hosted national golf tournaments and intended to do so again in the future

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).