Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., Susan Duran, Marsha Stafford and Oink, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding, in applying New Mexico antidilution statute, that \[d]ilution . . . is a question of fact . . . review[ed] under the clearly erroneous standard\
• noting that Section 32 and Section 43(a) claims involve “similar test[s],” the difference being that Section 43(a) is designed “for infringement of an unregistered trademark by a junior user”
• holding the district court’s finding following a bench trial that, customers are likely to exercise a “high degree of care in purchasing clothing that costs between fifteen and sixty dollars” was not clearly erroneous
• adopting McCarthy’s “better view” and holding that “even when combined with other evidence inquiries to the plaintiff about the source of a product are of comparatively little value.”
• discussing cases where tarnishment was found although there was no unwholesome context and finding that they all involved the use of identical or almost identical trade names on different products
• upholding a district court finding that calls made to an executive vice president asking whether his Lardashe product was affiliated with Jordache was not sufficient evidence of actual confusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).