Taj Mahal Enterprises, Ltd. v. Trump

How courts have described this case

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

• finding insufficient likelihood of confusion between TAJ MAHAL mark as used by restaurant and TAJ MAHAL mark as used by casino and hotel complex which included several restaurants
• court found evidence of inquiries about the relationship between the two companies was not convincing evidence of actual confusion
• “[T]he widespread use of a given mark by others weakens the mark and dilutes the plaintiff’s protections.”
• evidence of diversion establishes likelihood of confusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).