Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where plaintiff failed to show prior use and therefore ownership over trademark, the court may cancel registration of the trademark
• holding that manufacturer did not have trademark on mark “Stealth” for baseballs when it could not show that it had ever sold any baseballs under that mark
• describing section 1119 as “[p]art of the equitable relief’ requested by the plaintiff
• where plaintiff failed to show prior use and therefore ownership over trademark, court may cancel registration of the trademark
• A party “could have asserted its rights earlier by petitioning the PTO for cancellation, but nothing in § 1119 requires such a step.” (citation omitted)
• section 1119 “arms the court with the power to update the federal trademark register to account for a mark’s actual legal status (or lack thereof) after it has been adjudicated”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).