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).