In Re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corporation (Serial No. 75/131,355)

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a mark was not generic where there was no evidence that the relevant public referred to the class of shop-at-home mattress retailers as \1-888-M-A-T-R-E-S-S\
• finding that a mark was not generic where there was no evidence that the relevant public referred to the class of shop-at-home mattress retailers as “1-888-M-A-T-R-E-S-S”
• “Analyzing the '1-888-M-A-T-R-E-S- S’ mark as a whole, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that the mark is generic. There is no record evidence that the relevant public refers to the class of shop-at-home telephone mattress retailers as — 888— M-A-T-R-E-S-S.' ”
• generic terms “are by definition incapable of indicating a particular source of the goods or services”
• “‘1-888-M-A-T-R-E-S-S’ … immediately conveys the impression that a service relating to mattresses is available by calling the telephone number.”
• “A mark is the legal equivalent of another if it creates the same, continuing commercial impression such that the consumer would consider them both the same mark.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).