United States v. Moreno-Valdez

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiff’s “GIGGLE” marks did not acquire secondary meaning when compared to those of Defendant within the “children’s goods” market
• considering “screenshots of websites and advertisements” in trademark infringement case because they were “authenticated by an affidavit from . . . counsel for Defendant”
• finding marks dissimilar where defendant’s mark “only share[d] a single word—‘giggle’—in common with any member of [plaintiff’s] GIGGLE family of marks”
• finding marks dissimilar where defendant’s mark “only share[d] a single word—‘giggle’—in common with any member of [plaintiff’s] GIGGLE family of marks”
• finding marks dissimilar where defendant’s mark “only share[d] a single work—‘giggle’—in common with any member of [plaintiff’s] GIGGLE family of marks”
• finding the similarity factor favored defendants where the one shared element—the word GIGGLE—was itself a weak mark due to extensive third party use in the relevant marketplace

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).