W.W.W. Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. v. The Gillette Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there are three elements to a dilution claim: (1) a distinctive mark; (2) likelihood of dilution; and (3) predatory intent
• Holding that, in assessing the similarity of the marks, a court should “look at the general impression created by the marks, keeping in mind all factors which the buying public will likely perceive and remember.”
• observing that “speculative” testimony that did not purport to suggest that an actual consumer had been confused by the alleged infringement was not evidence of actual confusion
• finding the two marks “Sportstick” and “Right Guard Sport Stick” distinct because of the second user’s addition of the company name and different mode of presentation
• finding the two marks \Sportstick\ and \Right Guard Sport Stick\ distinct because of the second user's addition of the company name and different mode of presentation
• examining strength of senior user's mark in reverse confusion case, without discussing possibility that strength of junior user's mark is relevant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).