Pignons S. A. De Mecanique De Precision v. Polaroid Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that when a challenged mark is accompanied by the logo of the manufacturer, confusion is unlikely
• cautioning that “[ejvidence of actual confusion is not invariably necessary to prove likelihood of confusion”
• cautioning that “[e]vidence of actual confusion is not invariably necessary to prove likelihood of confusion”
• explaining that market coexistence without actual confusion for “a substantial period of time” creates a strong presumption that there is little likelihood of confusion
• explaining that market coexistence without actual confusion for “a substantial period of time” creates a strong presumption that there is little likelihood of confusion
• finding that a misdirected order for a camera and a deposition suggesting an instance of possible customer confusion over a four year period did not constitute a likelihood of confusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).