B.C.S. v. Darnell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “trademark rights are acquired and maintained through use of a particular mark.... This is true even of marks that have been registered with the Patent and Trademark Office”
• holding that sales occurring three years after presumption period were “insufficient to support the necessary inference that, in the non-use period, [the owner] maintained an intent to resume use”
• holding that sales occurring three years after presumption period were “insufficient to support the necessary inference that, in the non-use period, [the owner] maintained an intent to resume use”
• noting that “courts have generally held that a trademark owner cannot rebut a presumption of abandonment merely by asserting a subjective intent to resume use of the mark at some later date”
• finding no right to protection for “well known marks” under Sections 44(b) and 44(h) of the Lanham Act
• granting summary judgment for the party asserting an abandonment claim because the nonmoving party failed to furnish evidence of its intent to resume use of a mark

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).