- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Autozone, Inc. v. Strick
466 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Ill. 2006)2 Citing cases
Autozone, Inc. v. Strick
543 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 138 timesHolding that the evidence that the plaintiff had spent millions of dollars' on advertising to promote its mark and that the mark was displayed prominently on thousands of stores nationally was more than sufficient to establish the mark's strength
Despite reaching the ultimate conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law, the district court found that this factor supported a possibility of confusion. AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, 466 F.Supp.2d 1034, 1043 (N.D.Ill. 2006). We agree.
Hickory Farms, Inc. v. Snackmasters, Inc.
509 F. Supp. 2d 716 (N.D. Ill. 2007) Cited 14 timesIndeed, the significance of Snackmasters' website evidence, as of its non-website evidence, was primarily to show the commonality of use of the terms beef stick and turkey stick on products like those sold by Hickory Farms under those names. Hickory Farms also cites AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, 466 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Ill. 2006), in which Judge Hart found for defendants in a trademark infringement and dilution action brought by the owner of the registered mark AUTOZONE against a defendant who used the terms OIL ZONE and WASH ZONE. In AutoZone, however, there was no issue regarding the validity of the AUTOZONE mark and no contention that the term was generic.