by the trademark holder. Echo Travel, Inc. v. Travel Assocs., Inc., 870 F.2d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir.1989) ("A party’s subjective, self-serving view of its own alleged trademark is not competent evidence on which to base a finding of secondary meaning.”); Co-Rect Prods., Inc. v. Marvy! Adver. Photography, Inc., 780 F.2d 1324, 1332 (8th Cir.1985) ("[Djesires or intentions of the creator ... are irrelevant. Instead, it is the attitude of the consumer that is important.”); Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 1345 (C.C.P.A.1977) ("[R]e-gardless of the [mark owner's] intentions, it is the association, by the consumer, of the ... design with the [mark owner] as the source that is determinative.”); Plastilite Corp. v. Kassnar Imports, 508 F.2d 824, 827 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (<HOLDING>). 11 . The Court has estimated the number of
recognizing that the primary source for determining whether a contract is clear is the text of the document itself when an instrument is unambiguous it construction and legal effect will be based upon what is found within its four corners holding that it is not holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law holding that in determining distinctiveness it is the association of the mark with a particular source by the ultimate consumers which is to be measurednot applicants intent in adopting the mark