Fortres Grand Corporation v. Warner Brothers Entertainment

How courts have described this case

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

• applying Rogers and granting motion to dismiss; “[t]he same analysis applies to the use of [the mark] on the promotional websites [for defendant’s movie]”
• affirming dismissal of trademark action for failure to state a claim for relief where the district court found that the plaintiff “had not alleged a plausible theory of consumer confusion”
• defining a “senior user” as the first, and protected, user of the mark
• “Because Fortres Grand has failed to plausibly allege confusion, it has failed to state a claim for trademark infringement.”
• “[I]t is well established that [trademark] infringement, federal unfair competition, and state unfair competition . . . are analyzed under the same trademark infringement analysis.”
• Indiana trademark infringement claim is \analyze[d] . . . the same as Lanham Act trademark claims.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).