Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. v. James River Petroleum, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that PETRO STOPPING CENTER and JAMES RIVER PETRO CARD were dissimilar in sight and appearance
• finding two uses of “Petro” not confusing due to the marks’ different colors, different accompanying words, and different graphics
• finding two uses of \Petro\ not confusing due to the marks' different colors, different accompanying words, and different graphics
• stating that evidence of actual confusion must be placed in context, and evidence of few instances of confusion in light of large volume of business done by the plaintiff was “meager evidence of actual confusion” and “at best de minimis”
• considering the plaintiffs volume of commerce when assessing the de minimis nature of actual confusion evidence
• finding two uses of “Petro” not confusing due to the marks’ different colors, different accompanying words, and different graphics

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).