Packard Press, Inc.(formerly Packquisition Corporation),appellant v. Hewlett-Packard Company,appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that goods unrelated in kind nonetheless “could still be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods”
• vacating and remanding because the court could not “discern from the Board’s brief discussion” whether the Board applied the wrong test
• “When the registration does not contain limitations describing a particular channel of trade or class of customer, the goods or services are assumed to travel in all normal channels of trade.”
• “it is proper to give greater weight to the PACKARD portion of the PACKARD TECHNOLOGIES mark on the ground that the word “technology” is highly suggestive/merely descriptive with respect to the services at issue”
• “When the registration does not contain limitations describing a particular channel of trade - 15 - Opposition No. 91267675 or class of customer, the goods or services are assumed to travel in all normal channels of trade.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).