The University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he fame of the [plaintiff’s] name is insufficient in itself to establish likelihood of confusion under §2(d)”
• “[T]he initial and critical requirement is that the name (or an equivalent thereof) claimed to be appropriated by another must be unmistakably associated with a particular personality or ‘persona.’”
• “[Section] 2(a) was in- tended to preclude registration of a mark which conflicted with another’s rights, even though not founded on the fa- miliar test of likelihood of confusion.”
• “[Section] 2(a) was in- tended to preclude registration of a mark which conflicted with another’s rights, even though not founded on the fa- miliar test of likelihood of confusion.”
• “There may be no likelihood of such confusion as to the source of goods even under a theory of ‘sponsorship’ or ‘endorsement,’ and, nevertheless, one’s right of privacy, or the related right of publicity, may be violated.”
• “There may be no likelihood of such confusion as to the source of goods even under a theory of “sponsorship” or “endorsement,” and, nevertheless, one's right of privacy, or the related right of publicity, may be violated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).