Volvo Trademark Holding Ab v. Volvospares. Com

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the addition of generic terms does not diminish confusing similarity
• granting summary judgment when plaintiff had established that defendant registered domain name “in bad faith with the intent to profit”
• “In this case, the Court finds that ‘Volvo’ is the dominant portion of volvospares.com and that volvospares.com is therefore confusingly similar to VOLVO”
• volvospares.com is confusingly similar to VOLVO

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).