Words of wonder level 176 registration#

Both parties have moved for summary judgment.įed.R.Civ.P. In defense of the action, the defendant primarily contends that it is not using 'the dentists' choice' as a trademark but only fairly and in good faith to describe CREST toothpaste, that there is no likelihood of confusion, that DENTISTS CHOICE does not have a distinctive quality, and that the plaintiff has acquired no bona fide trademark rights because the products on which the trademark has been used have been sold in violation of federal law. The plaintiff's complaint charges the defendant with trademark infringement in violation of section 32 of the Lanham Act, use of a false designation of origin in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, dilution of plaintiff's trademark rights in violation of section 368-c of the New York General Business Law and common law unfair competition. The defendant did not discontinue use of the phrase, and the plaintiff commenced suit in April 1988. In September 1987, the plaintiff became aware of the defendant's use of the phrase and sent Procter & Gamble a cease and desist letter.

Since approximately July 1986, the defendant, Procter & Gamble Co., an Ohio corporation, has utilized the phrase 'the dentists' choice' in its advertising and promotion of regular and tartar control CREST toothpaste.

Words of wonder level 176 registration#

The plaintiff in this action, Wonder Labs, Inc., is a New York corporation that from approximately 1970 through 1987 manufactured, sold and distributed a toothbrush called 'Dentist's Choice.' On November 14, 1972, Wonder Labs obtained a registration for the trademark 'DENTISTS CHOICE' for use on toothbrushes.

Lewis, of counsel), Dinsmore & Shohl, Cincinnati, Ohio (Thomas S. Robin, Blecker, Daley & Driscoll, New York City (Marie V. Lilling, Talay Hafiz, of counsel), for plaintiff. *1059 *1060 Lilling & Greenspan, White Plains, N.Y.