Jewish Sephardic Yellow Pages, Ltd. v. DAG Media, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding a mark had not acquired secondary meaning (citing Mana Prods., Inc., 65 F.3d at 1071)
• finding evidence of a single instance of unsolicited media coverage insufficient and, consequently, this “weigh[ed] against a finding of secondary meaning”
• distinguishing Feathercombs from a case in which the defendant took a different position on distinctiveness when defending itself in an infringement action than it had when it applied to the PTO to register the mark at issue
• finding in the context of advertising expenditures, that expenditures did not support secondary meaning where plaintiff failed to show “with any level of specificity the portion of this outlay that was devoted to its [contested] mark,” as opposed to other marks which it used
• “[B]oilerplate affidavits offer only scant support for the proposition that plaintiffs mark had acquired the requisite level of recognition among the relevant audience.”
• “[G]iven the well-defined nature of plaintiffs market . . . three to four years of exclusive use is somewhat significant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).