Squirtco v. Tomy Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a single good from among several may sustain a finding of likelihood of confusion
• “The marks SQUIRT and SQUIRT SQUAD are, however, of such similarity that they are more likely to create confusion than prevent it”
• Applicant cannot take “wholly inconsistent” position of asserting that the mark is not descriptive of its goods in order to get a registration on the Principal Register and, when opposed, “assert that the oppo-ser is interfering with ordinary language usage”
• “[Tjhe argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display. By presenting its mark merely in a typed drawing, a difference cannot legally be asserted by that party.”
• “There is no specific limitation here, and nothing in the inherent nature of SquirtCo’s mark or goods that restricts the usage of SQUIRT for balloons to promotion of soft drinks. The board, thus, improperly read limitations into the registration.”
• “There is no specific limitation and nothing in the inherent nature of [registrant’s] mark or goods that restricts the usage of SQUIRT for balloons to promotion of soft drinks. The Board, thus, improperly read limitations into the registration”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).