Philbrick v. eNom, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “Philbrick’s Sports” was not inherently distinctive because mark simply signifies a “sporting-goods business associated with someone named Philbrick”
• discussing “majority view that intentional copying is simply one of the factors to be considered in evaluating secondary meaning, rather than assigning it any special weight” (cleaned up)
• plaintiff Philbrick’s Sports did not state designation of origin claim against defendants who registered the domain “philbrickssports.net” absent allegations that defendants were passing off their own products as plaintiff’s

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).