Interpace Corporation v. Lapp, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the marks “Lapp” and “Lapp Cable” are identical “for all practical purposes” and thus likely to cause confusion
• observing that the plaintiff had “introduced several examples of actual confusion in buyers”
• relying on district court’s finding that while defendant “may have acted innocently, [it] was careless in not conducting a thorough name search for American uses of the name”
• agreeing with district court’s conclusion that defendant’s mark, “Lapp Cable” was confusingly similar to plaintiffs “Lapp” trademark
• establishing the Third Circuit’s non- exhaustive eight-factor test for determining likelihood of confusion, the first of which is mark similarity
• finding plaintiff’s mark to be “a strong one” because plaintiff had used it for over fifty years, and the mark had become “quite distinctive” of the plaintiff's product

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).