Citation network
Kp Permanent Make-up, Inc. Vs. Lasting Impression I, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 08, 2004
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. LastingSearch
-
Impression I, Inc. - 03-409 (2004) Syllabus October Term, 2004 Kp Permanent Make-Up, Inc. V. LastingimpressionSearch
-
I, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States Kp Permanent Make-Up, Inc. V. LastingSearch
-
consumers about the origin of the goods or services in question, see, e.g., Two Pesos, Inc. v. TacoSearch
-
to give a defendant the burden to negate confusion. See, e.g., Russello v. UnitedSearch
-
of a likelihood-of-confusion test developed in the common law of unfair competition. While cases such as Baglin v. CusenierSearch
-
all but footnotes 4 and 5, and in which Breyer, J., joined as to all but footnote 6. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. LastingSearch
-
Impression I, Inc. - 03-409 (2004) Opinion of the Court Kp Permanent Make-Up, Inc. V. LastingimpressionSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-409 Kp Permanent Make-Up, Inc., Petitioner V. LastingSearch
-
PACCAR Inc. v. TeleScanSearch
-
and Zatarains, Inc. v. OakSearch
-
Shakespeare Co. v. SilstarSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Sunmark, Inc. v. OceanSearch
-
produce confusion in the minds of consumers about the origin of the goods or services in question. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. TacoSearch
-
Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon, Inc. v. AlphaSearch
-
Russello v. UnitedSearch
-
States , 464 U. S. 16 , 23 (1983) (quoting United States v. WongSearch
-
confusion, and would either enjoin the use or order the defendant to include a disclaimer. See, e.g. , Baglin v. CusenierSearch
-
s trademark. See, e.g. , William R. Warner & Co. v. EliSearch
-
Canal Co. v. ClarkSearch
-
b)(4) redundant and pointless. Hibbs v. WinnSearch
-
marks had no need to prove likelihood of confusion prior to 1988 is wrong. See, e.g. , Beer Nuts, Inc. v. CloverSearch
-
United States Jaycees v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
of allowing anyone to obtain a complete monopoly on use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first. Canal Co. v. ClarkSearch
-
N Fly, Inc. v. DollarSearch
-
s use of it cannot realistically be called descriptive. See Shakespeare Co. v. SilstarSearch
-
Kp Permanent Make-Up, Inc. V. LastingimpressionSearch
-
Two Pesos, Inc. v. TacoSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Kp Permanent Make-Up, Inc. V. LastingimpressionSearch
-
Kp Permanent Make-Up, Inc., Petitioner V. LastingSearch
-
See Two Pesos, Inc. v. TacoSearch
-
William R. Warner & Co. v. EliSearch
-
Beer Nuts, Inc. v. CloverSearch
-
See Shakespeare Co. v. SilstarSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial