Daniel R. Gray, D.B.A. Daffy Dan's v. Daffy Dan's Bargaintown

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that concurrent use plaintiff “was not ‘entitled’ to [a concurrent use] registration unless he also satisfied the ‘touchstone’ requirement of no likelihood of confusion with [the defendant’s] use”
• “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce. . . .’”
• “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce. . . .’”
• concurrent use plaintiff “was not ‘entitled’ to [a concurrent use] registration unless he also satisfied the ‘touchstone’ requirement of no likelihood of confusion with [the defendant’s] use”
• concurrent use plaintiff “was not ‘entitled’ to [a concurrent use] registration unless he also satisfied the ‘touchstone’ requirement of no likelihood of confusion with [the defendant's] use”
• “The issue of likelihood of confusion in 9 Concurrent Use No. 94002505 Thus, to establish his entitlement to registration as a concurrent user in Connecticut and New York City, Turdin must (i

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).