Papercutter, Inc., Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Fay's Drug Co., Inc., Appellee-Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that, although mark had in fact been registered, it was nonetheless descriptive and not suggestive
• noting that the distinction between descriptive and suggestive terms may be sharpened by “evaluation of ... the potential impact on competitors of the appropriation of the term as a trademark by a particular seller”
• defining secondary meaning as “proof that the public has come to associate the term with a particular source”
• noting that the 5 distinction between descriptive and suggestive terms may be sharpened by 6 ʺevaluation of . . . the potential impact on competitors of the appropriation of the 7 term as a trademark by a particular sellerʺ
• “The existence of secondary meaning is a question of fact with the burden of proof on the party claiming exclusive rights in the designation.”
• “To qualify for trademark protection, an owner of a descriptive mark must demonstrate that the mark had acquired secondary meaning before its competitor commenced use of the mark.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).