Murphy v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Aims

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming summary judgment where district court “found no evidence of expenditures that were related solely to [plaintiffs] [ ] advertisement” that he claimed was entitled to trademark protection
• affirming district court’s determination that plaintiffs mark lacked secondary meaning, noting that that court had found, among other things, “no evidence of [advertising] expenditures that were related solely to” the disputed mark
• “[T]he theme of Murphy’s advertising campaign is not a,service for which a servicemark could be claimed. It follows that, if Murphy was selling ... a product ... he performed no services that a servicemark might be said to identify.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).