GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but noted that plaintiff had had 16 days in which to do a survey). Defendant proffered both an Eveready (unaided awareness) survey and a sequential array survey. The Eveready survey showed zero confusion. The array also showed net zero (38% for the control minus 37.5% for the test). The Court, relying on visual, phonetic and connotative differences, held that the marks were dissimilar. Crediting defendant's survey, Court denied the motion. Decision Go Smile Glo Prelim Survey

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –

Legal notice about the GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners?

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but noted that plaintiff had had 16 days in which to do a survey). Defendant proffered both an Eveready (unaided awareness) survey and a sequential array survey. The Eveready survey showed zero confusion. The array also showed net zero (38% for the control minus 37.5% for the test). The Court, relying on visual, phonetic and connotative differences, held that the marks were dissimilar. Crediting defendant's survey, Court denied the motion. Decision Go Smile Glo Prelim Survey

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –

Legal notice about the GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners?

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but noted that plaintiff had had 16 days in which to do a survey). Defendant proffered both an Eveready (unaided awareness) survey and a sequential array survey. The Eveready survey showed zero confusion. The array also showed net zero (38% for the control minus 37.5% for the test). The Court, relying on visual, phonetic and connotative differences, held that the marks were dissimilar. Crediting defendant's survey, Court denied the motion. Decision Go Smile Glo Prelim Survey

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –

Legal notice about the GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners?

This entry was posted in Advertising Law. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but noted that plaintiff had had 16 days in which to do a survey). Defendant proffered both an Eveready (unaided awareness) survey and a sequential array survey. The Eveready survey showed zero confusion. The array also showed net zero (38% for the control minus 37.5% for the test). The Court, relying on visual, phonetic and connotative differences, held that the marks were dissimilar. Crediting defendant's survey, Court denied the motion. Decision Go Smile Glo Prelim Survey

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –

Legal notice about the GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners?

This entry was posted in Advertising Law. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but noted that plaintiff had had 16 days in which to do a survey). Defendant proffered both an Eveready (unaided awareness) survey and a sequential array survey. The Eveready survey showed zero confusion. The array also showed net zero (38% for the control minus 37.5% for the test). The Court, relying on visual, phonetic and connotative differences, held that the marks were dissimilar. Crediting defendant's survey, Court denied the motion. Decision Go Smile Glo Prelim Survey

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –

Legal notice about the GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners?

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but noted that plaintiff had had 16 days in which to do a survey). Defendant proffered both an Eveready (unaided awareness) survey and a sequential array survey. The Eveready survey showed zero confusion. The array also showed net zero (38% for the control minus 37.5% for the test). The Court, relying on visual, phonetic and connotative differences, held that the marks were dissimilar. Crediting defendant's survey, Court denied the motion. Decision Go Smile Glo Prelim Survey

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –

Legal notice about the GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners?

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but noted that plaintiff had had 16 days in which to do a survey). Defendant proffered both an Eveready (unaided awareness) survey and a sequential array survey. The Eveready survey showed zero confusion. The array also showed net zero (38% for the control minus 37.5% for the test). The Court, relying on visual, phonetic and connotative differences, held that the marks were dissimilar. Crediting defendant's survey, Court denied the motion. Decision Go Smile Glo Prelim Survey

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –

Legal notice about the GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners?

This entry was posted in Advertising Law. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply