Legal Opinion
Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Clairol Incorporated
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided June 18, 1970No. Patent Appeal 8248PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MeMANUS, Judge.
Roux Laboratories, Inc. appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 1 dismissing its opposition to registration 2 on the Principal Register by Clairol Incorporated of the slogan “Hair Color So Natural Only Her Hairdresser knows For Sure” for a “hair tinting, dyeing and coloring preparation." We affirm.
Roux’s opposition is predicated on the grounds that it, like Clairol, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of hair tinting, dyeing and coloring preparations; that it has used certain “descriptive” language in its advertising 3 of those products both before…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Company, Marmax Products Corp., and Morris Shapiro, Doing Business as Great Eastern Housewares CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- Clairol Incorporated v. The Gillette CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Weiss Noodle Company v. Golden Cracknel and Specialty CompanyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1961
- Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Products Co., Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965
- Application of Colonial Stores IncorporatedCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- McGregor-Doniger Inc. v. Drizzle Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Yamaha International Corporation v. Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd., Assignee of Hoshino Gakki Ten Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- In Re Owens-Corning Fiberglas CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.