Hornady Manufacturing Co. v. Doubletap, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs survey was improperly leading when it asked if the three packages shown individually were of the same, affiliated or unaffiliated sources
• recognizing that though “[l]ikelihood of confusion is a question of fact,” it is “amenable to summary judgment in appropriate circumstances”
• holding that “a handful of instances over the ten years in which [defendant] was in the market constitute de minimis evidence of a likelihood of confusion”
• disregarding, as “de minimis,” evidence of approx- imately eight separate instances of customers contacting one party in regard to the other competing product
• finding only de minimis confusion where there was a handful of instances over ten years
• “We are not required to restrict ourselves to the district court’s stated reasoning, and we may affirm for any reason supported by the record.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).