In Re California Innovations, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that evidence showing that the goods are, for example, a “principal 13 Serial No. 77928717 product” of the place named in the mark, or that the place is “noted for” or “renowned for” the goods, has been sufficient to satisfy the test for materiality
• noting the \relatively easy burden of showing a naked goods-place association.\
• “[M]arks determined to be primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive are permanently denied registration, as are deceptive marks under §1052(a).”
• while the goods-place association may raise an inference of deception, a mere inference is not enough to establish whether the misrepresentation was a material factor in the consumer’s decision
• \...there are identical legal standards for deception in each section...\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).