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[]

• 962 F.2d 316 (4th Cir. 1992)
• Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World 537 F.2d 4 (2nd Cir. 1976) (established the spectrum of trademark distinctiveness in the United States, breaking trademarks into classes which are accorded differing degrees of protection)
• 560 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

B[]

• Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com 650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011) ("hot news" misappropriation is preempted by copyright law where claims fall within the scope of the Copyright Act)
• 508 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1975)

C[]

• 284 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2002)
• Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc. [1992] 3 S.C.R. 120
• 886 F.2d 490 (2d Cir. 1989)
•  : passing off

D[]

• Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. 539 U.S. 23 (2003) (it is a misuse of trademark law to try to use the doctrine of reverse passing off to assert protection over a formerly copyrighted work which has passed into public domain)
• Derry v. Peek (1888) LR 14 App Cas 337

E[]

• Erven Warnink v. Townend & Sons Ltd. [1979] A.C. 731 (H.L.)
• 639 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2011) (naked licensing led to the mark being cancelled on the grounds of abandonment)

F[]

• 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15090 (WD Pa. 2011) (evaluating misleading description and consumer confusion claims in domain dispute)
• Frank Reddaway Ltd. v. George Banham [1896] A.C. 199 (H.L.)
• Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (8th Cir. 2005)

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[]

• 469 U.S. 189 (1985)
• (1873) LR 6 HL 377
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001)
• Perry v. Truefitt (1842) 6 Beav. 66, 49 E.R. 749 : first passing off case
• Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elects. 287 F.2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1961)
• Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo 565 F.3d 880 (DC Cir. 2009)

R[]

• Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc. [1990] R.P.C. 341 (H.L.) packaging
• 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 1998) (pictures of buildings do not violate trademark law)
• Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) (expressive uses of trademarks do not infringe)

Q[]

• Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) (a single color can qualify for trademark protection so long as it has acquired secondary meaning in the marketplace)

S[]

• Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Cadbury UK Limited [2012] EWHC 2637 (Ch) (1 October 2012)
• (1983) 70 C.P.R. (2d) 61
• Spalding v. Gamage (1915) 84 L.J.Ch. 449
• 166 F. 2d 348 (9th Cir. 1948)
• 177 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999)
• 470 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2006)

T[]

• Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. 600 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2010) (trademark owners have the burden of policing for when their products are sold in an online marketplace)
• 509 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2007)
• TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. 532 U.S. 23 (2001) (a functional design can not be trademarked, and a patented design is presumed to be functional)
• Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (Supreme Court applied trademark distinctiveness spectrum to trade dress, arguably giving official sanction to the merger of the requirements for trademark and trade dress, noting that inherently distinctive trade dress required no showing of secondary meaning.)

U[]

• Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. 746 F.2d 112 (SDNY 1982)
• 140 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 1998)

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)