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).

Cited by

134 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 1999-04-22· cited 774×
• Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corporation Andrx Laboratories, Inc
  Third Circuit· 2004-05-24· cited 653×
• Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America
  Third Circuit· 1990-11-29· cited 395×
• A&h Sportswear, Inc Mainstream Swimsuits, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, Inc
  Third Circuit· 2000-12-01· cited 323×
• Sands, Taylor & Wood Company v. The Quaker Oats Company
  Seventh Circuit· 1992-11-25· cited 243×
• Fisons Horticulture, Inc., in No. 93-7224 v. Vigoro Industries, Inc., in No. 93-7287
  Third Circuit· 1994-07-22· cited 227×
• Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 2001-10-19· cited 161×
• A.J. Canfield Company, a Corporation v. Honickman, Harold, an Individual and Concord Beverage Company, a Corporation
  Third Circuit· 1986-12-31· cited 159×
• Unnamed case
  Third Circuit· 2000-06-13· cited 138×
• Fuji Photo Film Company, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Shinohara Shoji Kabushiki Kaisha and Graphic MacHinery International, Inc., Cross-Appellants
  Fifth Circuit· 1985-03-07· cited 115×
• Versa Products Company, Inc. v. Bifold Company (Manufacturing) Ltd.
  Third Circuit· 1995-02-15· cited 113×
• Arrowpoint Capital Corp. v. Arrowpoint Asset Management, LLC
  Third Circuit· 2015-07-16· cited 93×
• Resorts International, Inc. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc.
  D. New Jersey· 1992-09-01· cited 92×
• Betterbox Communications Ltd v. Bb Technologies, Inc. Black Box Corporation
  Third Circuit· 2002-08-13· cited 85×
• Unnamed case
  Third Circuit· 2004-10-28· cited 75×
• McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC
  Third Circuit· 2007-12-24· cited 74×
• A & H Sportswear Inc. Mainstream Swimsuits, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 1999-01-21· cited 72×
• E.A. Sween Co. v. Deli Express of Tenafly, LLC.
  D. New Jersey· 2014-05-13· cited 68×
• Freedom Card, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
  Third Circuit· 2005-12-22· cited 59×
• Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky
  D. New Jersey· 1998-03-06· cited 58×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics Corporation
  Second Circuit· 1961-02-28· cited 1,042×
• Scott Paper Company, a Corporation v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., a Corporation
  Third Circuit· 1978-12-12· cited 279×
• Scarves by Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd. (Inc.)
  Second Circuit· 1976-11-22· cited 213×
• Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Arthur L. Johnson and Marjorie Johnson, a Partnership Doing Business as All-State School of Driving
  Third Circuit· 1955-02-21· cited 64×
• The American Plan Corporation v. State Loan & Finance Corporation
  Third Circuit· 1966-10-04· cited 22×
• Castel Venable v. William S. Neil, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary
  Sixth Circuit· 1972-06-30· cited 4×