Bliss Salon Day Spa v. Bliss World LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “BLISS marks are a glut on the market in hair styling and beauty care[,]” and therefore, “[t]hey are not distinctive, so the word does not belong in the ‘suggestive’ cubbyhole.”
• suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks are collectively “distinctive in the sense that secondary meaning is likely to develop, as a result of which any duplicate use of the name is likely to breed confusion about the product’s source.”
• discussing its holding in Plati num

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).