Wakaya Perfection, LLC v. Youngevity International

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence common use of a phrase in the beauty 2 industry underscored that a mark held by a beauty and skincare company 3 containing the phrase was not so “unique or strong”
• affirming grant of summary judgment on likelihood of confusion when “no reasonable consumer would be confused by these two products because the packaging, size, 2 color, shape, and all other attributes—other than the term ‘EYE DEW’—are not remotely similar”
• “We thus hold that a counterfeit claim requires a showing of likelihood of confusion under Section 1114.”
• “Put another way, a court must review 19 the product as a whole in determining whether an allegedly counterfeit product will likely 20 cause confusion.”
• “Section 1114 addresses both trademark infringement and counterfeit claims[.] We 27 thus hold that a counterfeit claim requires a showing of likelihood of confusion under Section 28 1114.”
• “In trademark infringement cases, the ‘use of a 26 housemark can reduce the likelihood of confusion.’” (quoting AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 27 599 F.2d 341, 351 (9th Cir. 1979))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).