“Cuffs & Collars” costume worn by Chippendales dancers found to be trade dress which could be inherently distinctive for “adult entertainment services, namely exotic dancing for women”
How later courts described this case
- “Cuffs & Collars” costume worn by Chippendales dancers found to be trade dress which could be inherently distinctive for “adult entertainment services, namely exotic dancing for women”
- “once a mark has achieved incontestable status under 15 U.S.C. § 1065, it is entitled to the benefits of section 1115(b), which precludes all but a limited number of challenges to a mark’s validity or enforceability”
- noting potential hardship to children of Korean descent who speak no Korean
- eligibility for relief "therefore ma[kes] out a 'prima facie' case"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GOODWIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority opinion is likely to shift the administration of hardship deportation cases from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to this court. The majority purports to hold only that the I&NS must *1352 grant the alien in this case a hearing. The opinion goes on, however, to supply a fairly strong indication how the hearing should turn out.
By using the majority opinion as a blueprint, any foreign visitor who has fertility, money, and the ability to stay out of trouble with the police for seven years can change his status from that of tourist or student to permanent resident without the inconvenience of immigration quotas. This strategy is not fair to those waiting for a quota.
The operations of the I&NS in hardship cases may or may not have followed the intent of Congress. The I&NS may not have satisfied the judges of this court; but I do not believe that judicial dissatisfaction with past performance justifies the change in direction which this court is taking. Congress conferred upon the agency a broad discretion. I would leave that discretion undisturbed.