George & Co. LLC v. Imagination Entertainment Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the de minimis actual confusion evidence “weigh[ed] heavily against a likelihood of confusion” where the plaintiff sold 500,000 games per year but produced evidence of only four instances of actual confusion (footnote omitted)
• noting that, in the trademark infringement context, “knowledge of another’s goods is not the same as intent to mislead and to cause consumer confusion”
• finding that because plaintiff presented “at best” de minimus evidence of actual confusion, the factor “weighs heavily against a likelihood of confusion.”
• finding that four instances of consumer confusion over two years was “at best de minimis” and weighed against a likelihood of confusion; affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant
• stating that courts consider factors such as “the plaintiffs record of ... success” and the “length and exclusivity of the plaintiffs use of the mark” to determine the commercial strength of a mark
• stating that once abandoned, “a mark returns to the public domain and may, in principle, be appropriated for use by others in the marketplace . . . in accordance with the basic rules of trademark priority”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).