Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, 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 as “a matter of basic common sense,” industry confusion can “serve as an adequate proxy or substitute for evidence of actual consumer confusion”
• recognizing that “a court conducting 8 a trademark analysis should focus its attention on the relevant consuming public”
• ruling that common law trademark infringement 27 claim survived summary judgment for the same reasons § 1125(a) claim survived
• holding that California state-law claims for 5 trademark infringement and unfair competition are “subject to the same legal 6 standards” as a Lanham Act trademark claim
• finding that common use of the name “Rearden” made two marks more than “somewhat” similar
• noting that 15 trade publications and news articles can support a showing of likelihood of confusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).