Safeway Stores, Incorporated, Cross-Appellee v. Safeway Discount Drugs, Inc., Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two instances of actual confusion were sufficient evidence of actual confusion to be worthy of some consideration
• holding that two instances of actual confusion, “one misdirected dunning letter from a creditor of [defendant] and one customer inquiry at [defendant],” were sufficient evidence of actual confusion to be “worthy of some consideration”
• recognizing that an evaluation of similarity between marks “must be based on the overall effect of the designs, not on individual features”
• finding that two instances of actual confusion were sufficient evidence of actual confusion
• noting that “the people confused are precisely those whose confusion is most significant: a supplier, presumably relatively familiar with an enterprise since he is actually providing it with goods, and a customer, without whom the business would not exist”
• finding that twenty marks containing one of the same words as the plaintiff's mark did \not significantly diminish the strength of the [plaintiff's] mark\ because the other marks were used by \businesses not closely related\ to the plaintiff's business

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).