Lawwly

A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

808 F.2d 291 (1986)

Intellectual Property
Relevant factsFree

Canfield (plaintiff) created and marketed "Diet Chocolate Fudge Soda" and tried to trademark the term "chocolate fudge," but the USPTO rejected the application as generic. When competitor Concord Beverage (defendant) began selling its own diet chocolate fudge soda, Canfield sought a preliminary injunction against Concord's use of the phrase, and the district court denied it.

IssueFree

Whether a descriptive term for a new genus of products is generic, and therefore unprotectable, if no other common alternative term conveys the same basic product information.

Unlock the full brief

Free accounts read 20 full briefs. No card required.

Start freeLog in

Related cases

Baltimore Orioles v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n805 F.2d 663 (1986)In re Hall781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986)Engel v. Wild Oats, Inc.644 F.Supp. 1089 (1986)NFL v. McBee & Bruno's, Inc.792 F.2d 726 (1986)Metallurgical Industries Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc.790 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1986)