Md. Casualty Co. v. Citizens Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two companies involved in car care had “a strong similarity between their wares and services” even though one sold car parts and the other did not
• finding that 15% and 23% levels of confusion are \strong evidence indicating a likelihood of confusion\
• explaining that \evidence of actual confusion ... is not essential to a finding of likelihood of confusion\
• concluding under “actual confusion” point heading that a “survey indicated that there [was] a high possible confusion level between Texon and EXXON.”
• acknowledging that, despite Exxon’s primary purpose in selling petroleum products, it also provided mechanical work for customers, which the defendant also provided
• explaining that survey evidence is often introduced to show a likelihood of confusion among the general public

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).