Perini Corporation v. Perini Construction, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that proof of “forecasted” damage to reputation among “other group[s]” is an actionable predicate to infringement, but holding that no such showing had been made.
• stating that the sophistication and expertise of the usual purchasers can preclude any likelihood of confusion among them stemming from the similarity of trade names
• finding that sophistication of the buyer was relevant in a market with extremely sophisticated buyers such as that for construction firms
• concluding court erred by failing “to connect the plaintiffs nationwide statistics to the defendant’s trade area”
• noting that association between suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful mark and its source is presumed
• noting that association between suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful mark and its source is presumed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).