assuming that a stroke is a “serious medical harm, the risk of which was substantial in plaintiff’s case” due to known hypertension
How later courts described this case
- assuming that a stroke is a “serious medical harm, the risk of which was substantial in plaintiff’s case” due to known hypertension
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WORLEY, Chief Judge
(dissenting)
It seems to me the majority gives entirely too much weight to the pictorial representation. The words “Jerry Finn” so commandingly overshadow the miniature figure that it is difficult to see how that mark could possibly be confused with petitioner’s pictorial representation of what is clearly intended to, and doubtless does, convey the impression only of a jockey.
I am familiar with the decisions cited by the majority, but see nothing therein which would control the facts here. North Star Manufacturing Co. v. Wells Lamont Corp., 193 F.2d 204 , 39 CCPA 764.