Legal Opinion · Dissent

Frederick Gash, Inc. v. Mayo Clinic

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 15, 1972No. 8677Published

1DissentBosensteiN, Judge

with whom Bich, J., joins.

I disagree with the reasoning and conclusion of the majority, and respectfully record my dissent.

In their notice of opposition, opposers Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation allege, inter alia, that the name “Mayo” has become well known to the general public as a result of their respective activities and services in the health field, and that “Mayo” is synonymous with opposers and their services; that the goods of appellant are directed to those interested in reducing or on a diet, and are related to the services of Mayo Clinic inasmuch as its doctors often prescribe…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc. v. The Gerson Stewart Corp.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1966
  2. Witco Chemical Company, Inc. v. Whitfield Chemical Company, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1969
  3. T. P. Laboratories, Inc. v. HugeDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1965
  4. Tiffany & Co. v. National Gypsum Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
  5. Mayo Clinic v. Mayo's Drug and Cosmetic, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962

1 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