§Why CasetextPricing

Miyano Machinery USA Inc. v. MiyanoHitec Machinery, Inc. et al

RESPONSE

61 Cited authorities

  1. Mazurek v. Armstrong

    520 U.S. 968 (1997)   Cited 3,377 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief has a "requirement for substantial proof is much higher" than a defendant's summary judgment motion

  2. TY, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc.

    237 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 571 times
    Holding that similarities between the defendant's "Beanie Racers" and Ty, Inc.'s "Beanie Babies" could cause the public to believe that the defendant's products were affiliated or associated with Ty, Inc.

  3. Packman v. Chi. Tribune Co.

    267 F.3d 628 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 509 times
    Holding that the supposed actual confusion among four of plaintiff's friends, none of whom had attempted to purchase the parties' goods, was "irrelevant to the question of confusion" because the four friends "were not relevant consumers under the Lanham Act" and, at best, showed "de minimis evidence of confusion"

  4. Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith Corp.

    991 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 410 times
    Holding the otherwise descriptive mark PARENTS to be strong in its stylized form

  5. AM General Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    311 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2002)   Cited 268 times
    Noting that a trademark owner can “ ‘tolerate de minimis or low level infringements' and still have the right to ‘act promptly’ ”

  6. Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust

    756 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1985)   Cited 418 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a delay in seeking a preliminary injunction "tends to neutralize any presumption that infringement alone will cause irreparable harm pending trial"

  7. Platinum Home Mortgage Corp. v. Platinum F. G

    149 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 277 times
    Holding failure to submit survey "not fatal"

  8. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc.

    233 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 253 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although there was no evidence of actual confusion, "the other factors — especially the similarity of the marks, the strength of the [plaintiffs] mark, and [the defendant's] intent to confuse — strongly support[ed] the district court's ultimate conclusion" to grant a preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act

  9. Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Restaurant

    360 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 230 times
    Affirming denial of a preliminary injunction

  10. Sands, Taylor Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co.

    978 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 284 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark to market a similar isotonic beverage was likely to cause confusion

  11. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,949 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  12. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,582 times   264 Legal Analyses
    Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

  13. Section 1064 - Cancellation of registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1064   Cited 888 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a petition to cancel a certification mark if the registered owner "discriminately refuses to certify" qualifying goods or services

  14. Section 1119 - Power of court over registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1119   Cited 809 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court the power in an action involving a registered mark to order the cancellation of a registration