Pizzeria Uno Corporation v. James W. Temple, Jr., D/B/A Taco Uno

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because PIZZERIA UNO and TACO UNO share a dominant word, their similarity weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion
• recognizing that “one intending to profit from another’s reputation” uses similar marks to purposefully “induce confusion”
• holding that a \good faith belief that a subsequently-adopted mark will not lead to confusion ... is no defense if a court finds actual or likelihood of confusion\
• noting that “Uno,” as used by the parties, was similar in “appearance,” “sound,” and “meaning”
• reasoning that advertising similarities would directly support a finding of infringement
• classifying marks into four broad categories of ascending strength or distinctiveness: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, and (4) arbitrary or fanciful

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).