514 U.S. 159 (1995) Cited 563 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
Holding that the "critical element" is "use of another firm's mark to capture the markholder's customers and profits" and quoting Checkpoint with approval
Holding that the Pennsylvania trademark dilution statute continued to require a showing of actual dilution after the Lanham Act was revised to include likelihood of dilution
Holding that the transfer of a domain name, as opposed to an injunction on its use, was inappropriate where the plaintiff established trademark infringement but failed to establish a violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, citing 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(C)
Holding that recoverable monetary loss may constitute irreparable harm "only where the loss threatens the very existence of the [petitioner's] business"