Getro Noreus v. UHG I LLC

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 good quality of the alleged infringer’s product actually may increase the likelihood of confusion as to source
• concluding that the Levi Strauss back pocket stitching pattern was a strong mark because it had “a very strong secondary meaning” and that “[v]irtually all jeans consumers associate the stitching pattern with [Levi’s] products”
• stating that intent is irrelevant in determining consumer confusion as to the source of a product
• stating that “the complete absence of actual confusion evidence after a significant period of competition may weigh in a defendant’s favor”
• stating that registration and incontestability of mark “entitles mark to significant protection”
• stating that registration and incontestability of mark “entitles mark to significant protection”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).