Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a broad application “is not narrowed by testimony that the applicant’s use is, in fact, restricted”
• “[R]egistrability of an applicant’s mark must be decided on the basis of the identification of goods set forth in the application.... ”
• “Where a party blindly disregards long established authority and raises arguments with no factual foundation ... the judicial process, has not been used, but abused.”
• applicant’s OCTOCOM for modems is likely to cause confusion with opposer’s OCTACOMM for computer programs because the products are used in conjunction with each other
• quoted in Cesari S.R.L. v. Peju Province, No. 91158374, 2004 WL 1703103, at (T.T.A.B. July 20, 2004)
• “Other than the above referenced testimony, the record is silent regarding any additional expansion plans by applicant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).