In Re Budge Manufacturing Co., Inc

How courts have described this case

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

• finding wording of advertising not relevant to trademark significance in deceptiveness analysis
• LOVEE LAMB deceptive for “automotive seat covers” that are “wholly made from synthetic fibers”
• LOVEE LAMB held deceptive for seat covers not made of lambskin
• “Congress has said that the advantages of registration may not be extended to a mark which deceives the public. Thus, the mark standing alone must pass muster, for that is what the applicant seeks to register, not extraneous explanatory statements”
• “the PTO has limited facilities for acquiring evidence ….”
• LOVEE LAMB deceptive for “automotive seat covers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Campbell v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
  Federal Claims· 2006-01-27· cited 470×
• Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc.
  Third Circuit· 2011-08-04· cited 88×
• Gilda Industries, Inc. v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2006-05-01· cited 38×
• The Institut National Des Appellations D'Origine v. Vintners International Company, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1992-04-22· cited 35×
• The Hoover Company v. Royal Appliance Mg. Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-01-31· cited 31×
• In Re California Innovations, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2003-05-22· cited 28×
• Madison Services, Inc. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2010-09-13· cited 24×
• Chemical Separation Technology, Inc. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2002-03-11· cited 8×
• Glendale International Corp. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
  E.D. Virginia· 2005-06-20· cited 2×
• Urban v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2014-11-03· cited 2×
• Phipps v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2016-04-26· cited 1×
• Ats Ford Drive Investment, LLC
  Federal Claims· 2021-10-06
• Phillips-Van Heusen Corp.
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2002-03-28
• Moti Shniberg
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2006-04-06
• ALP of South Beach Inc.
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2006-03-27
• Squaw Valley Develop-ment Company
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2006-05-23
• South Park Cigar, Inc.
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2007-02-01
• MC MC S.R.L.
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2008-09-26
• Corporacion Habanos, S.A. v. Guantanamera Cigars, Inc.
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2012-02-16
• Compania de Licores Internacionales S.A.
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2012-03-20

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Worden v. California Fig Syrup Co.
  Supreme Court· 1903-01-05· cited 94×
• In Re Loew's Theatres, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1985-08-09· cited 74×
• The B.V.D. Licensing Corporation v. Body Action Design, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1988-04-28· cited 52×
• In Re Dr Pepper Company
  Federal Circuit· 1987-12-24· cited 27×
• Application of Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. (Two Cases)
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1969-01-16· cited 22×
• R. Neumann & Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., Seton Leather Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc.
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1964-01-23· cited 16×
• The Amalgamated Bank of New York v. Amalgamated Trust & Savings Bank
  Federal Circuit· 1988-03-23· cited 14×
• In Re Bonide Chemical Co.
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1931-02-03· cited 11×