Clinique Laboratories, Inc. v. Dep 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 a skin care product had acquired secondary meaning after concluding that, some, but not all, of these factors were present
• finding no tarnishment or shoddiness when the plaintiff did not “present[] evidence of the [defendant’s] products’ inferi- or quality”
• finding similarity when the defendant “manufactured almost identical soap, toners, eye creams, and moisturizers, with only minuscule and insignificant changes in packaging and color”
• finding that “Clinique” mark is used and known nationally
• “The similarities of the products carry through to similarities in the boxes in which they are packaged.”
• “[T]he correct test [for likelihood of confusion] is whether a consumer who is somewhat familiar with the plaintiffs mark would likely be confused when presented with defendant’s mark alone.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).