Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 7, 1981No. Appeal No. 80-559Published

1Dissent

MILLER, Judge, with whom BALDWIN, Judge, joins,

dissenting.

I dissent because of errors of the board and errors in the majority opinion leading to an unwarranted monopoly on registration of “MONOPOLY.”

Proper Test

The board sustained the opposition because “purchasers who encounter items of clothing bearing the trademark ‘MONOPOLY’, used with or without the game components, are likely to believe that, or at least wonder whether, the items originate from, or are approved by, or are in some way associated with opposer” or “would be much more likely to react to applicant’s mark by thinking of…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. James Burrough Limited and Kobrand Corporation v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., and Montgomery Ward & Co., IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
  3. Otto Roth & Co. v. Universal Foods Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1981
  4. Dan Robbins & Associates v. Questor Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1979
  5. J. C. Hall Company v. Hallmark Cards, IncorporatedCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1965

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API