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).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Perfect Pearl Co. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2012-01-11· cited 83×
• Lyons v. Gillette
  D. Massachusetts· 2012-07-31· cited 10×
• Paradigm Biodevices, Inc. v. Viscogliosi Bros., LLC
  S.D. New York· 2012-02-03· cited 9×
• Scholz v. Goudreau
  D. Massachusetts· 2015-09-21· cited 6×
• Smartling, Inc. v. Skawa Innovation Ltd.
  District of Columbia· 2019-01-31· cited 6×
• Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp.
  D. Massachusetts· 2015-03-31· cited 5×
• General Linen Service, Inc. v. General Linen Service Co.
  D. New Hampshire· 2014-06-11· cited 4×
• General Linen Serv Inc. v. General Linen Serv. Co.
  D. New Hampshire· 2014-06-11