...opinion : "The single question, as I view it, in all these cases is merely one of fact: What do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending? If they understand by it only the kind of goods sold, then, I take it, it makes no difference whatever...

...presupposition. [2-4] The single question, as I view it, in all these cases, is merely one of fact : What do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending? If they understand by it only the kind of goods sold, then, I take it, it makes no difference whatever...

...product is simply a slip of speech, or reveals public ignorance of the term's source-denoting function." The latter cannot be determined without a fuller inquiry...the word for whose use the parties are contending!"" In other words, determining public understanding, not motivation, reveals whether the term at issue...

...descriptive name". The law has long recognized that the question in genericness cases is "what do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending"* and that the answer turns on whether the "primary significance" of the term is a mark or a generic...

...primary significance test,142 codifies the test articulated by Judge Learned Hand in 1921: "What do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending?" As such, an understanding of the "relevant public" is central to the genericness inquiry, rather than...

...expressed it in the 1921 trademark case, Bayer Co. v. United Drug Company, the basic test is, "What do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending?" (Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., Til F. 505, 509 (SDNY 1921)). Because, it was decided in that case,...

...Some courts adopt Learned Hand's standard: "the single question ... is merely one of fact: What do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending?" (Bayer Drug Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505, 509 [SDNY 1921]). Others have adopted the Supreme Court's...

...Learned Hand (in Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505, 509 (SDNY 1921)) vividly put it: 'What do the buyers understand by the word for whose use the parties are contending? If they understand by it only the kind of goods sold, then, I take it, it makes no difference whatever...