Dorr-Oliver, Incorporated v. Fluid-Quip, Incorporated and Andrew Franko

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that courts “review the district court’s statement of the law de novo for legal error” in likelihood of confusion cases
• noting that courts “review the district court’s statement of the law de novo for legal error” in likelihood of confusion cases
• noting that courts “review the district court’s statement of the law de novo for legal error” in likelihood of confusion cases
• “where product configurations are at issue, consumers are generally more likely to think that a competitor has entered the market with a similar product”
• “[T]he proper inquiry centers on the confusion of consumers in the market for the particular products at issue.”
• “It is not possible that any of these companies, all of which own and operate Dorr-Oliver clamshells, will be confused by Fluid-Quip’s introduction of a competitive line of clamshells.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).