Venture Tape Corp. v. McGinnis Glass Warehouse

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding likelihood of confusion where defendant “admitted that he intentionally used [plaintiffs] marks on [defen dant’s] website for the express purpose of attracting customers to [defendant’s] website and that he chose [plaintiffs mark] because of its strong reputation”
• listing eight factors for likelihood of confusion, namely, (1) similarity of marks; (2)similarity of goods; (3) relationship between channels of trade; (4) relationship between advertising; (5) classes of prospective consumers; (6) evidence of actual confusion; (7
• trademark holder must show, among other elements, that the alleged infringer’s “use of [its] marks likely confused . . . consumers, thereby causing [it] harm (e.g., lost sales)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).