Hanna v. Stroud

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that public recognition as a source identifier cannot “justify denying others the right to refer to their product as what it is”
• emphasizing that “weak marks are entitled to only an extremely narrow scope of protection, unless a convincing combination of other Polaroid factors militates strongly in favor of likelihood of confusion” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• vacating a preliminary injunction where the Second Circuit found that “balance of the hardships did not favor Plaintiff.”
• affirming finding that “Rise” mark for coffee product was suggestive because “the word ‘Rise’ evokes images of morning, which suggests a quality or qualities of the product through the use of imagination, thought, and perception” (cleaned up)
• affirming district court finding that the mark “rise” was suggestive because “rise” “evokes images of morning, which suggest[s] a quality or qualities of the product [coffee] through the use of imagination, thought, and perception” (first alteration in original
• affirming district court decision that a registered suggestive mark was weak

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).