Heirs of Thompson v. Bell

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant failed to prove deductions based on “only a vague, undifferentiated category of expenses” (internal citation omitted)
• concluding that the Court need only analyze the renown of the junior mark having already analyzed trademark infringement under the Polaroid factors
• weighing factor in plaintiff’s favor where defendant’s “very business model depended on [imitating plaintiff’s products to] creat[e] customer confusion and capitaliz[e] on [plaintiff’s] goodwill”
• finding this factor weighed in favor of the plaintiff where the plaintiff spent millions of dollars on marketing and sold its perfumes for decades as opposed to the defendant's lack of marketing and recent entry into the market
• finding this factor weighed in favor of the plaintiff where the plaintiff spent millions of dollars on marketing and sold its perfumes for decades as opposed to the defendant’s lack of marketing and recent entry into the market
• “The company’s intent to deceive can be inferred from the remarkable similarities between the . . . trade dresses[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).