Hasbro, Inc. v. Lanard Toys, Ltd.

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 magistrate properly declined to make any negative inference” from the lack of evidence of actual confusion considering the short period of time that defendant’s product had been on the market
• affirming magistrate’s finding that despite narrow trademark search defendant’s belief that it was senior user supported finding of good faith
• finding lack of actual confusion inconclusive where defendant’s product was marketed for eight months
• drawing no negative inference from absence of actual confusion as to product on market for short time
• finding the mark “GUNG-HO” for a toy action figure suggestive because it requires imagination to connect the “fantasy personality” attributed to the toy and does not “describe[] the particular toy itself or its differentiating qualities”
• the fact that “both users operate in the same market ... indicates that a greater likelihood of confusion exists than if they operated in different markets”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).