View a Sample Chapter

Similarity of the Marks§ 4:3.3to make the mental effort to reach the nexus. 60 Similarity of meaningis more significant in cases of inherently strong marks 61 than if theterms are highly suggestive, laudatory, or descriptive and lack secondarymeaning. One may not exclusively appropriate the connotation of suchterms: competitors must be free to describe and praise their owngoods. 62 No conflict was found in the following cases:PURE BREW and CLEAR BREW, 63LIP-FIX and LIP REPAIR, 64SUPEROXIDE and HYPER-OXIDE, 65PENN BEST and PENSUPREME, 66APPROVAL FIRST and APPROVAL PLUS, 67MINI BASS and LIL’ BASS. 6860. Floss Aid Corp. v. John O. Butler Co., 205 U.S.P.Q. 274, 285 (T.T.A.B.1979) (FLOSSAID v. FLOSSMATE, both for dental floss holders; “Opposerhas attempted to equate MATE with HELPER and then with AID; but it isnot likely that the average purchaser would sense that significance or makethe mental effort sufficient to reach this nexus.”).61. Hancock v. Am. Steel & Wire Co. of N.J., 203 F.2d 737, 97 U.S.P.Q. 330(C.C.P.A. 1953) (CYCLONE v. TORNADO both for fencing); Am. HomeProds. Corp. v. Johnson Chem. Co., 589 F.2d 103, 200 U.S.P.Q. 417,419–20 (2d Cir. 1978) (ROACH INN v. ROACH MOTEL).62. Am. Cyanamid Corp. v. Connaught Labs., Inc., 800 F.2d 306, 309, 231U.S.P.Q. 128, 129 (2d Cir. 1986) (VAX, IMUNE—“They may well have asimilar meaning, but that meaning lies entirely in their descriptivereference to vaccination and immunization”); Physicians Formula Cosmetics,Inc. v. W. Cabot Cosmetics, Inc., 857 F.2d 80, 84, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d1136, 1139 (2d Cir. 1988) (PHYSICIANS—“The concept of medicalendorsement is no more subject to exclusive use by a single party than aconcept such as ‘best quality’”); but see Beer Nuts, Inc. v. Clover ClubFoods Co., 711 F.2d 934, 221 U.S.P.Q. 209, 216 (10th Cir. 1983) (BREWNUTS v. BEER NUTS), and Kenner Parker Toys, Inc. v. Rose Art Indus.,Inc., 963 F.2d 350, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453 (Fed Cir. 1992) (PLAY-DOH v.FUNDOUGH); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 U.S.P.Q. 749,752 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (THE CASH MANAGEMENT EXCHANGE v. CASHMANAGEMENT ACCOUNT; refusal to register affirmed).63. Sunbeam Corp. v. Green Bay Tissue Mills, Inc., 199 U.S.P.Q. 695, 697–98(T.T.A.B. 1978).64. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 577 F. Supp. 477, 223 U.S.P.Q. 251, 256(S.D.N.Y. 1983).65. Roux Labs., Inc. v. Kaler, 214 U.S.P.Q. 134, 138 (T.T.A.B. 1982).66. Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Penn. Agric. Coop. Mktg. Ass’n, 200 U.S.P.Q. 462,466 (T.T.A.B. 1978).67. Sears Mortg. Corp. v. Ne. Sav. FA, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1227, 1229 (T.T.A.B.1992).68. In re Haddock, 181 U.S.P.Q. 796 (T.T.A.B. 1974).(Kirkpatrick, Rel. #28, 11/12)4–15