This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is a nonprofit organization founded in 1945 by a group of blinded World War II veterans. P was chartered by an act of Congress in 1958. D is a nonprofit that was founded by three former officials of P. D's purpose is assisting veterans with 'sensory disabilities such as visual impairment, hearing impairment, speech impediments, etc. It has so far directed its efforts exclusively toward sightless former service members. According to D it never occurred to its three founders that the name 'Blinded American Veterans Foundation' resembles the name of the founders' former employer, 'Blinded Veterans Association.' In 1986, D applied to 552 local campaign organizations involved in the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). Those organizations listed D alphabetically ahead of P, as a prospective recipient of CFC funds. D did rather well in its initial fundraising foray: the Foundation's 1986 income totaled between $35,000 and $40,000, half from CFC pledges and half from corporate contributions. P sued D. The court ruled that 'blinded veterans' is not a 'generic term incapable of acquiring trademark significance.' The court next concluded that 'Blinded Veterans Association' has acquired a secondary meaning. The district court found it likely that potential contributors would confuse BVA and BAVF. D appealed. D argues that 'blinded veterans' is a generic term incapable of acquiring trademark protection even if the term has acquired secondary meaning.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.