Wcvb-Tv v. Boston Athletic Association

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there would be no sponsorship confusion in part because (1) the television broadcaster offered to air frequent disclaimers that coverage of plaintiff's sports event was unofficial and (2) viewers would not care about sponsorship of broadcast
• “Cases where a defendant uses an identical mark on competitive goods ... are ‘open and shut’... ”
• “It makes sense to presume confusion about a relevant matter . . . from such an intent, at least in the absence of contrary evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).