Mobil Oil Corporation v. Pegasus Petroleum Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “actual or constructive knowledge may signal bad faith”
• approving district court finding of actual confusion based on “the likelihood that Pegasus Petroleum would gain crucial credibility in the initial phases of a deal” by using mark confusingly similar to Mobil’s flying horse
• identifying the first three Polaroid factors as “perhaps the most significant”
• identifying the first three Polaroid factors as “perhaps the most significant”
• “[P]otential purchasers would be misled into an initial interest in Pegasus Petroleum. Such initial confusion works a sufficient trademark injury.”
• likelihood that “potential purchasers would be misled into an initial interest” justifies finding of infringement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).