A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
808 F.2d 291 (1986)
- Written by Emily Houde, JD
Facts
A.J. Canfield Co. (Canfield) (plaintiff) was a bottler of soft drinks that became well known for producing “Canfield’s Diet Chocolate Fudge Soda.” Canfield attempted to trademark the term “chocolate fudge” in 1985, but the application was denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on the ground that the term was generic. Concord Beverage Co. (Concord) (defendant) began selling its own diet chocolate fudge soda in 1985. On August 30, 1985, Canfield filed for a preliminary injunction in the district court to prevent Concord from using the phrase “Diet Chocolate Fudge Soda” on Concord’s soft drinks, as it constituted trademark infringement. The district court denied Canfield’s preliminary injunction, and Canfield appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Becker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
