Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. Walsh

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs’ long and extensive use of the marks together with their advertising and promotional efforts and reputation provide sufficient support to classify the marks as distinctive
• noting that “[l]ikelihood of confusion is an essential element of a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act” and the “same likelihood of confusion standard applies to the unfair competition and false designation of origin claims”
• denying summary judgment on the chapter 110H claim because there was “sufficient” evidence of distinctiveness and dilution
• recognizing reputational harm where claimant lost investors
• “The same likelihood of confusion standard applies to the unfair competition and false designation of origin claims.”
• “[L]ikelihood of dilution . . . can result from . . . reduction of the value of the mark caused by actual or potential confusion[.]” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).