Mil-Mar Shoe Company, Incorporated v. Shonac Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “Warehouse Shoes” to be generic
• “We have repeatedly recognized that ‘[t]o allow 14 a producer of goods to usurp a generic term as a protectable trademark would prevent 15 competitors from describing their own goods adequately’” (collecting cases)
• “An easy ‘noun versus adjective’ test to signify a mark as either generic or descriptive, respectively, does not, however, adequately characterize the law of this circuit, nor would such a simplistic approach adequately embody fundamental principles of trademark law.”
• “An easy ‘noun versus adjective’ test to signify a mark as either generic or descriptive, respectively, does not, however, adequately characterize the law of this circuit, nor would such a simplistic approach adequately embody fundamental principles of trademark law.”
• “An easy ‘noun versus adjective’ test to signify a mark as either generic or descriptive, respectively, does not, however, adequately characterize the law of this circuit, nor would such a simplistic approach adequately embody fundamental principles of trademark law.”
• drawing a distinction similar to that in Liquid Controls

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).