John R. Thompson Co., Doing Business as and Through Its Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Holloway House, Inc. v. Mrs. Lee Holloway, Sr. (1966)

green · 107 citation events across 33 courts. Showing the 36 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 36

Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

196719962026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green American Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc. (2008)

Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 116-17 (5th Cir.1966); Am.

green Vais Arms, Inc. v. George Vais (2004)

Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir.1966)("a man has no absolute right to use his own name, even honestly, as the name of his merchandise or his business").

green Conan Properties, Inc. v. Conans Pizza, Inc. (1985)

Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir.1966); Hanover Mfg.

green Safeway Stores, Incorporated, Cross-Appellee v. Safeway Discount Drugs, Inc., Cross-Appellant (1982)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

Thompson v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114 (5th Cir. 1966), that “[w]here the unauthorized use of a conflicting mark is confined to a distinct and geographically separate market, there may be no present likelihood of public confusion”, the court ruled that, because Safeway had no stores in Florida and no advertising penetration in the state, there was no likelihood of confusion.

green Vais Arms Inc v. Vais (2004)

Quote Authority · 5th Cir.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 1966)(“a man has no absolute right to use his own name, even honestly, as the name of his merchandise or his business”).

“a man has no absolute right to use his own name, even honestly, as the name of his merchandise or his business”

green Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Restaurant, L.L.C., 565 Lexington Avenue Co., LLC (2004)

Rule Authority · 2d Cir.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114 (5th Cir.1966) (“Where the unauthorized use of a conflicting mark is confined to a distinct and geographically separate market by the junior user, there may be no present likelihood of public confusion.”).

green Peaches Entertainment Corp. v. Entertainment Repertoire Associates, Inc. (1995)

Rule Authority · 5th Cir.

Thompson v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 116 (5th Cir.1966); and Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358, 360 (2d Cir.1959), becomes the junior user’s trade territory.

green Comidas Exquisitos, Inc. v. O'Malley & McGee's Inc. (1985)

Rule Authority · 8th Cir.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114 (5th Cir.1966) (plaintiff is not entitled to relief because there is no present likelihood of confusion); see also WSM, Inc. v. Hilton, 724 F.2d 1320, 1329 (8th Cir.1984) (liability under the Lanham Act is predicated on use of trademark that is likely to cause confusion).

green Comidas Exquisitos, Inc. v. O'Malley & McGee Inc., Formerly D/B/A Carlos McGee Mexican Cafe, Inc., Comidas Ex… (1985)

Rule Authority · 8th Cir.

green Raxton Corporation, D/B/A Off the Rax v. Anania Associates, Inc., D/B/A Off the Rack (1980)

Rule Authority · 1st Cir.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114-16 (5th Cir. 1966); Sterling Brewing, Inc. v. Cold Spring Brewing Corp., supra, 100 F.Supp. at 418 .

green Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Saunders Archery Company (1975)

Rule Authority · 8th Cir.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 1966); Rand McNally & Co. v. Christmas Club, 105 U.S.P.Q. 499 , 500-501 (1955), aff'd, 242 F.2d 776 , 44 CCPA 861 (1957); 3 Callmann, supra § 86.1(b) at 1065.

green Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co. v. Saunders Archery Co. (1975)

Rule Authority · 8th Cir.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 1966); Rand McNally & Co. v. Christmas Club, 105 U.S.P.Q. 499 , 500-501 (1955), aff’d, 242 F.2d 776 , 44 CCPA 861 (1957); 3 Callmann, supra § 86.1(b) at 1065.

green Holiday Inns Of America, Inc. v. B & B Corporation (1969)

Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114-115 (5 Cir. 1966); Kelly Girl Service, Inc. v. Roberts, supra n. 8; Villager, Inc. v. Dial Shoe Co., 256 F.Supp. 694 (E.D.Pa. 1966); Quality Courts United v. Quality Courts, 140 F.Supp. 341 (M.D.Pa.1956) 14 For example, each motel in the Holiday Inn chain must offer the following comforts and conveniences to its patrons: year-round air conditioning; swimming pool; free advance reservations; telephone in each room; meeting facilitie…

green Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. B & B Corp. (1969)

Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114-15 (5 Cir. 1966); Kelley Girl Service, Inc. v. Roberts, supra n. 8; Villager, Inc. v. Dial Shoe Co., 256 F.Supp. 694 (E.D.

green Cross Trailers, Inc. v. Cross Trailer Mfg. & Sales, LLC (2018)

Quote Authority · W.D. Tex. · signal: see · 4 citations in this opinion

See Holloway , 366 F.2d at 114 ("A registrant[ ] ... has no presently (sic) enforcible rights in an area to which there is no presently provable probability of such expansion of the registrant's services or reputation as will create a likelihood of confusion[ ]"). 5 District courts took note of the Fifth Circuit's rarer application and moderated tone.

"A registrant[ ] ... has no presently (sic) enforcible rights in an area to which there is no presently provable probability of such expansion of the registrant's services or reputation as will create a likelihood of confusion[ ]"

green Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Park & Fly, Inc. (1979)

Rule Authority · D. Mass. · 2 citations in this opinion

The court went on to allow the defendant to retain its name because of the small likelihood of confusion, but it further found, If plaintiff does not expand the use of its “Holloway House” mark, then there will be no occasion to interfere with the defendants’ use of their tradename “Holloway’s.” However, if future expansion of the plaintiff’s business or reputation does occur and confusion becomes likely, the rights of the plaintiff are definitely superior to those of the de…

green Modular Cinemas of America, Inc. v. Mini Cinemas Corp. (1972)

Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114, 116 (5th Cir. 1966). (emphasis added).

green Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. American Body Building Products, LLC (2007)

Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.

Thompson v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 116 (5th Cir.1966); Salton, Inc. v. Cornwall, 477 F.Supp. 975, 992 (D.N.J. 1979).

green Fusco Group, Inc. v. Loss Consultants International, Inc. (2006)

Rule Authority · N.D.N.Y.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114 (5th Cir.1966). *332 A review of the Polaroid factors support the conclusion that concurrent use of the INTERCLAIM mark by Plaintiffs and Defendant would cause a likelihood of confusion.

green Arribas & Associates, Inc. v. American Home Products Corp. (2005)

Rule Authority · prsupreme

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114-115 (5to Cir. 1966).

green Citicasters Licenses, Inc. v. Cumulus Media, Inc. (2002)

Rule Authority · S.D. Ga.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 115 (5th Cir.1966).

green Harod v. Sage Products, Inc. (2002)

Rule Authority · S.D. Ga.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114-16 (5th Cir.1966) (explaining the geographic extent of trademark rights); American Foods, Inc. v. Golden Flake, Inc., 312 F.2d 619, 625-26 (5th Cir. 1963)(same).

same

green Tri-County Funeral Service, Inc. v. Eddie Howard Funeral Home, Inc. (1997)

Rule Authority · Ark.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 1966).

green Fleming Companies, Inc. v. Thriftway, Inc. (1992)

Rule Authority · S.D. Ohio

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114-116 (5th Cir.1966); see Dawn Donut, 267 F.2d at 362 .

green Davidoff Extension S.A. v. Davidoff Comercio E Industria Ltda. (1990)

Rule Authority · D.P.R.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 115 (5th Cir.1966); Dawn Donut Company v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358, 362 (2d Cir.1959).

green R.J. Toomey Co. v. Toomey (1988)

Rule Authority · D. Mass.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir.1966).

green Chase Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Chase Manhattan Financial Services Inc. (1987)

Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114 (5th Cir.1966), in which it is held that “a registrant’s remedies are ... limited, and it has no presently enforceable rights in an area to which there is no presently provable probability of such expansion of the registrant’s services or reputation as will create a likelihood of confusion.” (emphasis in original).

green Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Trump (1985)

Rule Authority · D.N.J.

Thompson v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir.1966); Caesars World, Inc. v. Caesar’s Palace, 490 F.Supp. 818, 826 (D.N.J.1980); 1 McCarthy, § 13.3.

green American Automobile Ass'n v. AAA Insurance Agency, Inc. (1985)

Rule Authority · W.D. Tex.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114-16 (5th Cir.1966), neither Defendant’s incorporation in Texas under the name “AAA Insurance Agency, Inc.,” nor acceptance of that name by the State Board of Insurance, constitutes a defense to this action for infringement. 36.

green Hodge Chile Co. v. KNA Food Distributors, Inc. (1983)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mo.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 116 (5th Cir.1966).

green Arthur Young, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1983)

Rule Authority · N.D. Ala.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113-14 (5th Cir.1966), it does lead the Court to conclude that plaintiff did not intentionally and deliberately misappropriate the service mark of Arthur Young & Company.

green Exxon Corp. v. Humble Exploration Co., Inc. (1981)

Rule Authority · N.D. Tex.

Thompson v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 1966).

green Scientific Applications, Inc. v. Energy Conservation Corp. of America (1977)

Rule Authority · N.D. Ga.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 115 (5th Cir. 1966).

green Boston Professional Hookey Ass'n v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., Inc. (1973)

Rule Authority · N.D. Tex.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 112 (5th Cir. 1966).

green Bucci v. Burger King Corporation (1972)

Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 1966).

green Digicom, Inc. v. Digicon, Inc. (1971)

Rule Authority · S.D. Tex.

Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 114-115 (C.A.5, 1966). *636 Based on the probable expansion of plaintiff’s consulting services, and particularly in view of its extensive volume of business with the federal government, the court is convinced that plaintiff should be granted an unrestricted registration.