Interlake Iron Corp. v. Gartland S. S. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that GoTo’s logo is a strong mark despite “the fact that the term ‘Go’ and green ‘Go’ circles are certainly common sights on the Internet”
• concluding that even upon a finding of innocent intent, “it would prove nothing since no such intent is necessary to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion.”
• explaining that section 32 “covers only registered marks,” whereas section 43 “protects against infringement of unregistered marks and trade dress as well as registered marks”
• holding that the district 27 court did not abuse its discretion in authorizing a bond less than that requested by the defendants 28 1 because imposition of such a bond would have precluded the preliminary injunction to take 2 effect
• emphasizing that consistent findings as to all of the eight factors are not necessary “to reach a conclusion as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion”
• stating that this court allows laches to bar trademark infringement cases \only where the trademark holder knowingly allowed the infringing mark to be used without objection for a lengthy period of time\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).