O'KEEFE v. Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “the mere fact that [plaintiff’s] work was posted on the internet prior to the creation of defendants’ work is insufficient by itself to demonstrate wide dissemination”
• “the mere fact that [plaintiff]’s work was posted on the internet prior to the creation of defendants’ work is insufficient by itself to demonstrate wide dissemination”
• “[T]he mere fact that [the plaintiff’s] work was posted on the internet prior to the creation of defendants’ work is insufficient by itself to demonstrate wide dissemination.”
• ‘‘[A] well known mark — one that has a high degree of acquired distinctiveness — is less susceptible to this sort of [reverse] confusion than a mark that is not widely recognized.”
• reverse confusion \rests on a theory that the defendant has saturated the marketplace with a mark similar to the plaintiff's less well known mark to such a degree that consumers will be misled into believing that the plaintiff is ‘an unauthorized infringer’ of the defendant's mark\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).