Household Finance Corp. v. Ellis

How courts have described this case

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

• finding six-year delay in filing a petition to cancel did not make a laches defense where confusion was inevitable
• finding confusion inevitable for “identical term ‘BRIGHTWHITE’ or ‘BRIGHT WHITE’ for the specified goods”
• laches not applicable when confusion is inevitable; “notwithstanding the equities between the parties and the equitable principles of § 1069 [of the Trademark Act], the public interest expressed in § 1052 [of the Trademark Act] is the dominant consideration”
• laches not applicable when confusion is inevitable; “notwithstanding the equities between the parties and the equitable principles of § 1069 [of the Trademark Act], the public interest expressed in § 1052 [of the Trademark Act] is the dominant consideration”
• equitable defenses not applicable when confusion is inevitable
• equitable defenses not applicable when confusion is inevitable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).