Implications of Trademark Names in the Marketing of Pharmaceuticals

REFERENCES

• McClure, D. M.. "Trademarks and unfair competition: A critical history of legal thought," The Trademark Reporter. 69 TMR 305. 310 (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. A., "The historical development of trademarks," The Trademark Reporter, 65 TMR 265, 267 (1975).
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 1 at 311–314.
   Google Scholar
• See M',4ndrew v. Basset, 46 Eng. Rep. 965 (Ch. 1964).
   Google Scholar
• Treece, J. M. and Stephenson. D., "Another look at descriptive and generic terms in American trademark law," The Trademark Reporter, 66 TMR 452 (1976).
   Google Scholar
• Lunsford, J. R., "Consumers and trademarks: The function of trademarks in the marketplace," The Trademark Reporter, 64 TMR 75, 76–78 (1974).
   Google Scholar
• Act of July 5, 1946 (Lanham Act), 15 U.S.C. 1051–1127 (1976).
   Google Scholar
• Id., Sec. 45(15 U.S.C. 1127).
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. T., Trademarks and Unfair Competition, (New York: Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company, 1st ed. 1973). Sec. 3:3 at Ill.
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1051 (1976).
   Google Scholar
• Id.
   Google Scholar
• In re Swift & Co., 223 F.2d 950 (CCPA 1955).
   Google Scholar
• Supra. note 5 at 470.
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1064, 1119 (1976).
   Google Scholar
• In re Hollaender Mfg. Co., 511 F.24 1186 (CCPA 1975).
   Google Scholar
• In re G. D. Searle & Co., 360 F.2d 650 (CCPA 1966).
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1063–1064 (1976).
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1114-1117(1976).
   Google Scholar
• See Supra, note 9, Sec. 23:1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Id. at Sec. 24:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1052(d), 1114(1)(a), (b) see Safeway $tores, Inc. v. Safeway Properties. Inc., 307 F.2.4 495 (CA2 1962).
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 9, Sec. 11:1-2, 11: 24.
   Google Scholar
• Tisch Hotels, Inc. v. Americartna Inn, Inc., 350 F.2d 609 (CA7 1965).
   Google Scholar
• Id., see also Blatow, Inc. v. Blazow Mobile Homes Corp., 416 F.26 598 (CA7 1969).
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 9 at Sec. 11:5.
   Google Scholar
• Id. at Sec. 15: 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, 5th ed., (New York: Lippincou & Crowell, 1980), p. 352.
   Google Scholar
• See Clinton Detergent Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 302 F.2d 745 (CCPA 1962).
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1052(0. see also Armstrong Pain: & Varnish Works v. No-Enamel Corp., 305 U.S. 315 (1938).
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 9 at Sec. 12:1, see also Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Id. at Sec. 12:15, see also Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 365 U.S. 111 (1938).
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1127 (1976).
   Google Scholar
• See King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc., 321 F.2d 577 (CA2 1963).
   Google Scholar
• Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (DC NY 1921).
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1052(e) (1976).
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1064(c) (1976).
   Google Scholar
• See Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group. Inc., 684 F.2d 1316 (CA9 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1227 (1983).
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 9 Sec. 12:2, see also Fearhercombs. Inc. v. Solo Products Corp.. 306 F.2d 251 (CA2 1962).
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 33 at 577, see also Kunin, L., "The structure and uses of survey evidence in trademark cases," The Trademark Reporter, 67 TMR 97 (1977).
   Google Scholar
• Osoba, W. F., "The legislative response to anti-monopoly: A missed opportunity to clarify the genericness doctrine," University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 1985, No. (1985). p. 202–203.
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 37.
   Google Scholar
• Id. at 1324-26.
   Google Scholar
• Id., 459 U.S. 1227 (1983).
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 40 at 199.
   Google Scholar
• In re DC Comics, Inc., 689 F.2d 1042, 1053–54 (CCPA 1982).
   Google Scholar
• S. 1990, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983); H.R. 4460, 98th Cong. 1st Sess (1983).
   Google Scholar
• Pub. L. No. 98–620, 98 Slat. 3335 (1984).
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1064 (1984).
   Google Scholar
• Id.
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1065 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Kuzow, M. F., "The FTC and the generic doctrine: A new Rx for pharmaceutical trademarks," Tulsa Law Journal, Vol. 15:327 (1979), p. 344, see Supra, note 9, Sec. 12:2, see also note 34.
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 9, Sec. 12:2(b), see also Chas. Pfizer & Co. v. Generic Formulae, Inc., 275 F. Supp. 421 (DC NY 1967).
   Google Scholar
• Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, 207 F.2d 190 (CA9 1953).
   Google Scholar
• "R-OTC : A symposium," condensation of papers and discussions, The Pro-prietary Association, Washington, D.C., November 1, 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 52, 53.
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 34. See also Nissen Trampoline Co. v. American Trampoline Co., 193 F. Supp. 745 (1961); Q-Tips v. Johnson & Johnson, 108 F. Supp. 845 (1952).
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 33, 34.
   Google Scholar
• Supra, note 34 at 514.
   Google Scholar
• Id. at 510.
   Google Scholar
• DuPont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products, 85 F.2d 75 (CA2 1936) (cellophane), Houghton Elevator Co. v. Seeberger, 85 U.S. Pat. Quart. 80 (CCPA 1950) (escalator), see also note 33, (thermos).
   Google Scholar
• Lunsford, J. R., "Prestige, practice and protection," Georgia Law Review, Vol. 4, (1970), p. 322, 338.
   Google Scholar
• Supra. note 31.
   Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. A., "How to use a trademark properly," U.S.T.A. Executive Newslet-ter, No. 9, (1971).
   Google Scholar
• 15 U.S.C. 1111 (1984), Sec. 29, "Notice of registration."
   Google Scholar