Freedom Card, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that there is “no strict prohibition against using ‘direct’ confusion evidence in a ‘reverse confusion’ case, or vice-versa”
• noting that Lapp factors seven, nine and ten “are not apposite for directly competing goods.”
• noting that although Fisons implies that mere carelessness could weigh in plaintiffs favor in reverse confusion case, Third Circuit has not yet adopted “carelessness” as standard for analyzing intent to confuse
• affirming district court’s consideration of plaintiff s consent agreement with third party, and representations to USPTO, “as judicial estoppel, an admission, waiver, or simply hoisting [the plaintiff] by its own petard”
• rejecting a senior user’s claim that the junior user overwhelmed the market as “fanciful at best” when the senior user failed to promote its mark before the junior user entered the market

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).