About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - August 2021)

handle is hein.ali/retuc0512 and id is 1 raw text is: UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D CHAPTER 3. THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS TOPIC 3. INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS § 21. Proof of Likelihood of Confusion: Market Factors C.A.5, 2020. Com. (i) quot. in ftn. Manufacturer of hard-seltzer beverages named BRIZZY sued competitor that sold hard-seltzer beverages named VIZZY, seeking a preliminary injunction, and alleging that defendant infringed upon plaintiff's mark. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. This court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff could not obtain a preliminary injunction, because it failed to prove that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims. The court explained that, although plaintiff's trademark was of a greater quality than a generic mark under Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 21, Comment i, the fact that the mark was suggestive was only one factor in determining its strength for the purpose of its standing in the marketplace, and noted that suggestive marks did not weigh towards a finding that the marks were likely to cause confusion among the parties' customers. Future Proof Brands, L.L.C. v. Molson Coors Beverage Company, 982 F.3d 280, 290. TOPIC 5. LICENSING AND ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS § 34. Assignment of Trademarks C.A.4, 2021. Cit. in sup. After the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board approved applications for registrations of the iPad mark filed by seller of touch-screen tablets, competitor that sold cloud-storage services under the ipad mark appealed; applicant counterclaimed for trademark infringement. The district court granted summary judgment for applicant on all of the parties' claims and counterclaims. This court affirmed, holding, among other things, that competitor was not the senior user of the mark. The court reasoned that applicant became the senior user when it acquired a prior user's then-pending trademark application for the same mark under Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 34, which recognized that an assignee succeeded to an assignor's priority of use in a mark. RXD Media, LLC v. IP Application Development LLC, 986 F.3d 361, 370. COPYRIGHT ©2021 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most