About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/retuc0520 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D CHAPTER 3. THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS TOPIC 4. DEFENSES AND LIMITATIONS ON RELIEF § 30. Abandonment C.A.4, 2025. Com. (a) cit. and quot. in ftn. to diss. op. Manufacturer of low-speed open-air vehicles filed a trademark infringement claim against competitors that asserted ownership of a mark used by all parties and applied to register the mark, seeking declaration that it owned the trademark. After a bench trial, the district court found that the mark was a generic term for the parties' vehicles and was not a trademark that could be owned. This court vacated and remanded, holding that the district court did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the mark was generic. The dissent argued that the mark was an inherently distinctive term and that the parties were seeking to claim a novel trademark that had been abandoned, citing Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 30 in noting that, although in some instances subsequent users of an abandoned mark could be required to avoid deceptive misrepresentations that attempted by falsehood to pass off' the source of the new product as the original trademark owner, subsequent users owned the trademark and were otherwise free to use the abandoned designation. Moke America LLC v. Moke International Limited, 126 F.4th 263, 297. C.A.4, 2024. Cit. in cases cit. in sup., com. (a) quot. in sup. Telecommunications company sued competitor, alleging that competitor infringed company's common-law ownership of a trademark. The district court granted summary judgment for competitor, finding that, although company had acquired common-law ownership rights in the mark, it had abandoned the mark for lack of use for three consecutive years. This court vacated and remanded, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact that could overcome the presumption of abandonment, and that the statutory abandonment test under the Lanham Act applied in an ownership dispute concerning a common-law trademark. The court rejected competitor's contention that the Lanham Act did not apply to disputes over common-law trademarks, pointing out that sister circuits and Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 30 applied the abandonment test to infringement claim at common law as well as to claims for the infringement of marks registered under the Act. Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 115 F.4th 266, 285. COPYRIGHT C2025 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.