Pom Wonderful v. Robert Hubbard, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even where 15 “the presentation of the marks differ[ed] in terms of prominence, font, size, and capitalization,” the 16 district court erred in finding similarity weighed against the plaintiff, because the marks had 17 identical pronunciation, meaning, and letters
• providing that this court reviews for clear error a district court’s likelihood of confusion determination
• noting that Urban Dictionary “allows users to publish their own definitions of words with limited editorial oversight”
• explaining that “a channel of trade is not limited to identical stores or agents”
• noting that factual findings reviewed for clear error
• \Marketing channels can converge even when different submarkets are involved so long as the general class of ... purchasers exposed to the products overlap.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).