Equine Technologies, Inc. v. Equitechnology, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing strong similarity between hoof care products even though price differential and sophisticated purchasers
• district court did not err in being guided by six of seven factors that pulled one way, rather than strength, which pulled the other
• words “equine technologies” suggests, without describing, hoofpads, even though “u” in “equine” resembled horseshoe
• holder of the mark entitled to presumption that its registered trademark is inherently distinctive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).