Grotrian, Helfferich, Schulz, Th. Steinweg Nachf. v. Steinway & Sons

How courts have described this case

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

• finding the value of Steinway’s trademark to be harmed where potential purchasers of Steinway pianos were initially interested in Grotrian-Steinweg pianos because of the name
• levels of 7.7% of 520 people canvassed who perceived a business connection and 8.5% who confused names supported declaratory judgment and injunctive relief
• court found plaintiff infringed on defendant’s trademark therefore defendant’s warning to plaintiff of possible legal action to protect its trademark not actionable as tortious interference with contract
• 8% “strong evidence of likelihood of confusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).