Estee Lauder Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. The Gap, Inc. D/B/A Old Navy Clothing Company, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the “test” for a trademark infringement claim “is not whether confusion is possible” but rather “whether confusion is probable among numerous customers who are ordinarily prudent”
• finding that although the defendant used the plaintiff’s trademark on similar products, this factor did not weigh toward confusion because “each product [was] labeled to show which company is its source”
• reversing the district court's weighing of the Polaroid factors in assessing a claim of post-sale confusion on the basis of incorrect balancing
• noting lack of evidence that consumers associated the term “100%” or the phrase “100% Time Release Moisturizer” with Lauder weighed against the strength of the marks
• finding mark suggestive, but holding district court's con- clusion that mark was moderately strong to be clearly erroneous
• “A suggestive mark is one that suggests the product, though it may take imagination to grasp the nature of the product.” (citation and internal quotation mark omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).