Legal Opinion
Murphy v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 21, 1990No. 169, Docket 90-7335PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:
Thomas M. Murphy appeals from a summary judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Eginton, J.) dismissing Murphy’s service-mark infringement and unfair competition claims. We affirm.
In recent years, insurance brokers and third party administrators (TPAs) have strongly favored the use of the word “hot” in their advertisements. The following scattered examples are typical:
What’s RED HOT about cafeteria plans; WE MATCH HOT IDEAS WITH HOT PRODUCTS; A HOT NEW TEAM IN TOWN; NOW! The ‘Hot’ Products in Small Group; 3 Hot UL’s; Newest,…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Murphy v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, AimsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Richards v. Direct Energy Servs., LLCCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
- Bubble Genius LLC v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- Obesity Research Inst., LLC v. Fiber Research Int'l, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2018
- Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc. v. Sportswear, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2017
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.