Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Bachman Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that defendant’s use of its own name did “not necessarily negate the possibility that [the mark at issue was] also being used in a trademark sense, especially since it appeared] ... as prominently as [defendant’s own mark]”
• finding presumption of validity accorded to registered mark was not overcome by survey results where the sample polled was not sufficiently representative
• finding that the defendant’s use of its name alongside the mark at issue did not “necessarily negate the possibility that [the mark] is also being used in a trademark sense, especially since it appears on the package as prominently as the housemark”
• denying defendant’s motion to cancel trademark because “ruffles” was generic for ridged potato chips
• “[D]ue to Frito-Lay’s vigorous policing efforts ... [Defendant] can offer no evidence of widespread industry use.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).