People ex rel. Godwin v. Board of Education

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that district court erred in its finding on similarity, because visual dissimilarities were legally irrelevant to marks communicated over radio and through word of mouth, and finding that the factor “favored the plaintiff as a matter of law”
• noting that the same analysis applies to claims brought under Sections 32 and 43(a)
• “It is self-evident that the existence of actual consumer confusion indicates a likelihood of consumer confusion.”
• “It is self-evident that the existence of actual consumer confusion indicates a likelihood of consumer confusion.” (citation omitted)
• where defendants used the same name as plaintiff, the defendants’ mark was sufficiently similar to increase the likelihood of confusion despite other differences
• “‘[A]cquired distinctiveness,’ i.e., fame, or the extent to which prominent use of the mark in commerce has resulted in a high degree of consumer recognition.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).