Clinton Detergent Company v. The Procter & Gamble Company

How courts have described this case

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

• no general rule to determine precisely where a word acquires such distinctiveness to function as a mark; “[e]ach case must stand on its own record”
• “CARJOY” for “combined cleansing and polishing materials” refused registration in view of the well-advertised, registered mark “JOY” for “sudsing cleaner, cleanser and detergent.”
• “[o]pposer … has the burden of proof to establish that applicant does not have the right to register its mark”
• where the added word simply describes a use for the product (JOY vs. CARJOY detergent), it does not serve to lessen the likelihood of confusion
• Although “JOY” dish-washing detergent was at first a weak mark, it had acquired an extensive secondary meaning and was, therefore, likely to be confused with “CARJOY”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).