Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Nature Labs, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “many of the factors” relevant to the likelihood of dilution are “also relevant” to the likelihood of confusion
• granting alleged infringer's motion for summary judgment because the junior mark was a readily perceived pun unlikely to cause confusion
• finding a lack of tarnishment when the plaintiff “submitted no evidence on whether there is a disparity in quality between its own fragrance and the [infringing product]”
• granting summary judgment to maker of parody' pet cologne “Timmy Holedigger” because the “obvious parody or pun, readily so perceived, [is] unlikely to cause confusion among consumers”
• “[T]he majority [of courts] have held that trademark cases are outside the scope of this general consumer protection statute.”
• “[T]he majority [of courts] have held that trademark cases are outside the scope of this general consumer protection statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).