International Cosmetics Exchange, Inc. v. Gapardis Health & Beauty, 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 concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion
• holding that-concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion
• holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion
• noting that “[t]he fact that the order was issued by a magistrate [judge] does not affect its appeal- ability” because “[t]he parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).