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

P manufactures and distributes 'Fish-Fri' and 'Chick-Fri.' Both are coating mixes for food. The term 'Fish-Fri' has been used by Zatarain's or its predecessor since 1950 and has been registered as a trademark since 1962. D began to use the term 'Chick-Fri' in 1968 and registered the term as a trademark in 1976. Four other companies market coatings for fried foods that are denominated 'fish fry' or 'chicken fry.' D began marketing a 'fish fry' and a 'chicken fry' in March 1979. P sued D alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. D filed a counterclaim against P under the Sherman Act. D also counterclaimed for cancellation of the trademarks 'Fish-Fri' and 'Chick-Fri' under section 37 of the Lanham Act. The court classified the term 'Fish-Fri' as a descriptive term identifying a function of the product being sold and that it had acquired a secondary meaning in the New Orleans geographical area and therefore was entitled to trademark protection. The court held that D was entitled to fair use of the term 'fish fry' to describe characteristics of their goods. The court found that 'Chick-Fri' was a descriptive term that had not acquired a secondary meaning. It ordered that the trademark registration of 'Chick-Fri' should be canceled. Both parties appealed. P argues that 'Fish-Fri' is a suggestive term and therefore not subject to the 'fair use' defense.

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.