Hamm v. Knocke

How courts have described this case

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

• $15,000 in advertising insufficient to infer that public associated plaintiff’s mark only with him
• extensive prior use by others of “DROWNPROOF” precludes secondary meaning in plaintiff’s favor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).