In Re Shinnecock Smoke Shop

How courts have described this case

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

• holding SHINNECOCK BRAND FULL FLAVOR and SHINNECOCK BRAND LIGHTS, both for cigarettes, falsely suggest a connection with the Shinnecock Indian Nation
• determining that “[a]pplicant’s allegations regarding similar marks” were “irrelevant” because “[e]ven if all of the third-party regis- trations should have been refused registration under sec- tion 1052(a
• “Applicant’s allegations regarding similar marks are irrelevant because each application must be considered on its own merits.”
• ‘Applicant’s allegations regarding similar marks are irrelevant because each application must be con- sidered on its own merits.’
• “[T]he ordinary meaning of ‘institution’ suggests the term is broad enough to include a self- governing Indian nation”
• “Applicant’s allegations regarding similar marks are irrelevant because each application must be considered on its own merits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).