A.J. Canfield Company, a Corporation v. Honickman, Harold, an Individual and Concord Beverage Company, a Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “if we hold a designation generic, it is never protectable”
• determining that designation “chocolate fudge” was generic and unpro-tectable
• holding CHOCOLATE FUDGE generic for diet sodas
• holding CHOCOLATE FUDGE generic for diet sodas
• holding CHOCOLATE FUDGE generic for diet sodas
• “Because chocolate fudge denotes a flavor, no imagination is required for a potential customer to reach a conclusion about the nature of Canfield’s soda.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).