Thompson Medical Company, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that composite “Sportscreme” mark was descriptive in case of alleged infringement by “BEN-GAY Sportsgel” mark
• holding such intent to confuse is merely a part of an overall weighing of all factors
• noting that “[w]here a mark is ineligible for protection, there is no need to examine likelihood of confusion”
• finding that “Sportscreme” is a descriptive mark because “no exercise of the imagination is necessary for the public to understand that the product is a cream useful in connection with sports”
• outlining 3 the six factors relevant to evaluating whether a mark has acquired secondary 4 meaning
• reversing finding that marks were confusingly similar where district court “examined only a ‘fragment’ of [defendant’s] mark, instead of considering that [defendant’s mark] is linked prominently to the BEN-GAY line of products.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).