List of trademark case law

This list contains an alphabetical listing of historically significant or leading case law in the area of US trademark law.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

  • 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005)
  • 657 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011) (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) claims to be evaluated at the point of registration, not re-registration)
  • 202 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2000)

H

  • (1818)
  • 87 USPQ2d 1411 (T.T.A.B. 2008) (cancellation granted on the basis of false suggestion of a connection between Twiggy and the children's clothing line)

I

  • (1987) 16 C.P.R. (3d) 385 (Ont. H.C.): "shared goodwill"
  • Inwood Labs v. Ives Labs 456 U.S. 844 (1982) (evaluating functionality considerations and secondary liability for inducing infringement)

K

  • 543 U.S. 111, 124 (2004) ("a plaintiff claiming infringement of an incontestable mark must show likelihood of consumer confusion as part of the prima facie case, ... while the defendant has no independent burden to negate the likelihood of any confusion in raising the affirmative defense that a term is used descriptively, not as a mark, fairly, and in good faith")

L

  • (T.T.A.B. 2010) (mark held to be disparaging due to its similarity to a term offensive to a religious group)
  • 507 F.3d 252 (CA4 2007) (parody is not automatically a defense to dilution, but a successful parody changes the approach to the 6 dilution factors)

M

  • Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1171 (2003) (song which parodies Barbie is noninfringing free speech, not unfair competition or prohibited dilution)
  • Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. 537 U.S. 418 (2003) (evidence of actual dilution must be shown, not merely a likelihood of dilution)
  • , 775 F.2d 247 (8th Cir. 1985)
  • 874 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1989) (rejection of a claim of trademark infringement due to genericide of mark)

N

  • 191 F.3d 208 (2nd Cir. 1999)
  • 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992)

O

  • (1985) 5 C.P.R. (3d) 433 (Ont. C.A.): passing off

P

R

Q

S

T

U

W

  • 529 U.S. 205 (2000) (regarding trade dress - a product's design is distinctive, and therefore protectable, only upon a showing of secondary meaning)

Y

  • 26 F. 2d 972 (2nd Cir. 1928) (protection of trade names; even if marks are on goods which are not in competition, the mark may be infringing if there is a significant likelihood of consumer confusion)