Glow Industries, Inc. v. Lopez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the Glow mark is suggestive, “Glow, Inc .... cannot claim broad protection for its mark, and should have anticipated some confusion with legitimate competitors as a consequence”
• noting that three factors are “especially pertinent” in reverse confusion cases, but nonetheless analyzing all eight Sleekcraft factors in detail
• noting that “[k]nowing adoption of a mark closely similar to another is a sound basis for inferring an intent to deceive”
• noting that market penetration is determined by, among other factors, positive and negative growth trends
• noting that, although plaintiff is likely to establish itself as the senior user of a mark, it must also demonstrate legally sufficient market penetration “to establish a likelihood of success on the merits”
• noting that commercial strength is evaluated in light of “any advertising or marketing campaign by the junior user that has resulted in ‘a saturation in the public awareness of the junior user’s mark.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Stonefire Grill, Inc. v. FGF Brands, Inc.
  C.D. California· 2013-08-16· cited 33×
• Matrix Motor Co. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
  C.D. California· 2003-06-30· cited 17×
• Marketquest Grp., Inc. v. BIC Corp.
  S.D. California· 2018-06-12· cited 16×
• Credit One Corp. v. Credit One Financial, Inc.
  C.D. California· 2009-09-23· cited 14×
• Moose Creek, Inc. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
  C.D. California· 2004-08-09· cited 14×
• Conversive, Inc. v. Conversagent, Inc.
  C.D. California· 2006-05-10· cited 13×
• Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Moroccan Gold, LLC
  C.D. California· 2008-12-09· cited 11×
• Novalogic, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard
  C.D. California· 2013-06-18· cited 11×
• Boldface Licensing + Branding v. By Lee Tillett, Inc.
  C.D. California· 2013-03-11· cited 9×
• Hanginout, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
  S.D. California· 2014-05-13· cited 8×
• Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Marc Anthony Cosmetics, Inc.
  C.D. California· 2014-09-16· cited 5×
• Synoptek, LLC v. Synaptek Corp.
  C.D. California· 2018-03-05· cited 5×
• Optimal Pets, Inc. v. Nutri-Vet, LLC
  C.D. California· 2012-06-29· cited 5×
• Pollution Denim & Co. v. Pollution Clothing Co.
  C.D. California· 2007-09-07· cited 4×
• JL Beverage Co. v. Beam, Inc.
  D. Nevada· 2012-09-25· cited 4×
• Resource Lenders, Inc. v. SOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC.
  E.D. California· 2005-12-12· cited 2×
• Solid 21, Inc. v. Hublot of America
  C.D. California· 2015-06-12· cited 2×
• Caiz v. Roberts
  C.D. California· 2016-12-15· cited 1×
• Scorpiniti v. Fox Television Studios, Inc.
  N.D. Iowa· 2013-01-23

Cites

113 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1992-06-26· cited 1,571×
• Amf Incorporated, a Corporation v. Sleekcraft Boats, a Sole Proprietorship, and Bruce E. Nescher, an Individual
  Ninth Circuit· 1979-06-28· cited 811×
• Abercrombie & Fitch Company v. Hunting World, Incorporated
  Second Circuit· 1976-02-26· cited 777×
• Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 1999-04-22· cited 774×
• Doe Lang, Petitioner/defendant-Appellant v. Retirement Living Publishing Co., Inc., Respondent/plaintiff-Appellee
  Second Circuit· 1991-11-18· cited 489×
• Mike Cohn, D.V.M. v. Petsmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-02-12· cited 411×
• Amstar Corporation v. Domino's Pizza, Inc. And Atlanta Pizza, Inc., Pizza Enterprises, Inc. And Pizza Services, Inc., Hanna Creative Enterprises, Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1980-05-02· cited 381×
• E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co.
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-02-07· cited 373×
• Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss
  Ninth Circuit· 1993-10-07· cited 341×
• John H. Harland Company, Cross-Appellant v. Clarke Checks, Inc., Cross-Appellee
  Eleventh Circuit· 1983-08-08· cited 333×
• A&h Sportswear, Inc Mainstream Swimsuits, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, Inc
  Third Circuit· 2000-12-01· cited 323×
• Diana Packman v. Chicago Tribune Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Front Page News, Incorporated, a California Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 2001-09-27· cited 315×
• Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith Corp.
  Second Circuit· 1993-04-28· cited 308×
• Daddy's Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy's Family Music Center
  Sixth Circuit· 1997-03-14· cited 288×
• The Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos
  Ninth Circuit· 1988-12-02· cited 279×
• Levi Strauss & Co., a Delaware Corporation v. Blue Bell, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 1985-12-13· cited 255×
• Sands, Taylor & Wood Company v. The Quaker Oats Company
  Seventh Circuit· 1992-11-25· cited 243×
• Entrepreneur Media, Inc., a California Corporation v. Scott Smith, an Individual Dba Entrepreneurpr
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-02-11· cited 235×
• The Paddington Corporation v. Attiki Importers & Distributors, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 1993-06-17· cited 232×
• Fisons Horticulture, Inc., in No. 93-7224 v. Vigoro Industries, Inc., in No. 93-7287
  Third Circuit· 1994-07-22· cited 227×

Other cases named Glow Industries, Inc. v. Lopez

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Glow Industries, Inc. v. Lopez
  C.D. California· 2003-07-23· cited 10×