the registered mark on the goods specified in the registration.
4. Plaintiff is the owner of the trademark FAST FORM, Trademark Registration No. 1,301,545. This trademark protects goods described as being: "non-self adhesive-type multisheet business forms for use in recording and simultaneously transferring data for specialized market applications and specifically intended to be used as a component in a one-write pegboard accounting system."
5. The trademark FAST FORM is placed on some of the forms sold by plaintiff as components of its one-write business forms systems. These forms are intended to be held securely in place so that dual entries can be quickly made. The forms are held fast so their purpose can be accomplished quickly.
6. The trademark, "FAST FORM," is descriptive because it conveys an immediate idea of the qualities and characteristics of the forms to which it is applied.
7. A merely descriptive mark can achieve trademark protection only if it has secondary meaning. Secondary meaning exists when the trademark is interpreted by the consuming public to be not only a designation of the product, but also a representation of the product's origin.
8. Plaintiff's trademark, FAST FORM, does not have secondary meaning.
9. Plaintiff's mark lacks the strength to warrant protection beyond the specific terms of its registration.
10. NEBS' FASTFORM computer software programs are not non-self adhesive-type multisheet business forms for use in recording and simultaneously transferring data for specialized market applications and specifically intended to be used as a component in a one-write pegboard accounting system.
11. NEBS FASTFORM computer software does not compete with FAST FORM forms sold by SAFEGUARD as components of its one-write business systems.
12. There is little likelihood that consumers will be confused about the origin of NEBS' FASTFORM and believe that it is a product produced by SAFEGUARD.
13. There has been no actual customer confusion concerning the source of Safeguard's FAST FORM and NEBS FASTFORM.
14. Plaintiff has little chance of succeeding on the merits.
15. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction must be refused.
AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 1988, plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby refused.
On October 24, 1988, at 9:00 a.m., I will initiate a telephone conference call with counsel so that we may discuss the scheduling of a final hearing.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.