Connection lost
Server error
Big O Tire Dealers, Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio Corporation Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A small tire company sued Goodyear after the corporate giant launched a massive advertising campaign using the smaller company’s “Big Foot” trademark. The court affirmed liability, establishing the doctrine of “reverse confusion” where a junior user’s saturation advertising creates confusion about the senior user’s product source.
Legal Significance: This case established the viability of the “reverse confusion” theory of trademark infringement, protecting smaller senior users from being overwhelmed by larger, junior users. It also introduced a novel method for calculating corrective advertising damages for plaintiffs who cannot afford to mitigate harm before trial.
Big O Tire Dealers, Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio Corporation Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. (“Big O”), a cooperative of approximately 200 independent tire dealers, began selling tires under the name “Big O Big Foot” in early 1974. Big O did not have a federal registration for the mark. In July 1974, Defendant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (“Goodyear”), the world’s largest tire manufacturer, decided to use the name “Bigfoot” for a massive nationwide advertising campaign for its new radial tire. In late August 1974, Goodyear learned of Big O’s prior use of the mark but, after brief and unsuccessful discussions, proceeded with its $9.69 million advertising campaign on September 16, 1974. Big O sued for common law trademark infringement and disparagement. The jury found for Big O, awarding $2.8 million in compensatory damages and $16.8 million in punitive damages. Goodyear appealed, arguing that its use of the mark did not constitute infringement because it was not attempting to trade on Big O’s goodwill and that the damages were improper.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under common law trademark principles, is a large junior user liable for infringement when its extensive advertising campaign for a mark previously adopted by a smaller senior user creates a likelihood of “reverse confusion,” causing the public to believe the senior user’s product originates with the junior user?
Yes. The court affirmed Goodyear’s liability for trademark infringement based on the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Under common law trademark principles, is a large junior user liable for infringement when its extensive advertising campaign for a mark previously adopted by a smaller senior user creates a likelihood of “reverse confusion,” causing the public to believe the senior user’s product originates with the junior user?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent in trademark law, solidifying the reverse Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostru
Legal Rule
Trademark infringement liability extends to situations of "reverse confusion," where a junior Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore e
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the novel application of trademark principles to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea co
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Establishes the tort of reverse confusion, where a large junior user’s
