Nestle v. Court of Appeals

Summary

This trademark opposition case involved CFC Corporation's application to register 'FLAVOR MASTER' for instant coffee, opposed by Nestle companies claiming confusing similarity with their established 'MASTER ROAST' and 'MASTER BLEND' marks. The Supreme Court resolved a conflict between the dominancy test and totality test for determining trademark similarity. While the Court of Appeals applied the totality test and focused on visual differences between labels, the Supreme Court ruled that the dominancy test was more appropriate for inexpensive household items purchased by casual buyers. The Court found that 'MASTER' had acquired suggestive meaning through Nestle's advertising campaigns and that its use in 'FLAVOR MASTER' would likely cause confusion among ordinary purchasers. The decision established important precedent on the proper test for trademark similarity in consumer goods cases, emphasizing that each case must be decided based on its unique factual circumstances.