Sands, Taylor & Wood Company v. The Quaker Oats Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant’s use of the plaintiffs mark to market a similar isotonic beverage was likely to cause confusion
• stating that intent is relevant only if the defendant intended to palm off its goods as those of the plaintiff
• holding that courts can infer bad faith when “the senior user’s trademark is so well-known” and the junior user chooses “a confusingly similar mark, out of the infinite number of marks in the world”
• stating that the “transfer of a mark need not be accompanied by the transfer of any physical or tangible assets in order to be valid”
• noting that a junior using a well- known mark, out of an infinite number of marks, supports an inference of bad faith
• stating that intent to trade on a good will or reputation \is necessarily absent in a reverse confusion case\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).