Jenisek v. Riggs

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a mark had not been abandoned when the trademark holder offered a legitimate reason for making only nominal sales, namely waiting for trademark ownership issues to be fully litigated and resolved
• upholding the district court’s 9 finding that the plaintiff’s “advertising campaign ha[d] not stressed the color and shape of 10 [plaintiff’s] antifreeze jug so as to support an inference of secondary meaning”
• “Any such determination made by the Patent Office under the circumstances just noted must be regarded as inconclusive since [it is] made at its lowest administrative level.”
• “Any such determination made by the Patent Office under the circumstances just noted must be regarded as inconclusive since [it is] made at its lowest administrative level.”
• \The most this court could say is that there might be a possibility of confusion ... there is certainly no likelihood of such confusion.\
• court states that “[n]umerous factors can and often do play a role in the determination of likelihood of confusion,” id. at 800, but focuses analysis on evidence of actual confu sion, and similarity of the marks in question

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).