Crystal Entertainment & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a company that originally formed a band did not own rights to the band’s mark because, inter alia, the company failed to exercise control over the band
• stating that it need not reach the likelihood of confusion issue because Crystal lacks enforceable rights in the Exposé mark
• noting that “the legal standards we apply to [a state law claim] are the same as those we have applied under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act”
• explaining, in a music ensemble case, that “[t]rademark law ordinarily does not permit two entities to share a mark due to the consumer confusion that would ensue.”
• “[T]he legal standards we apply to [the FDUPTA] claim are the same as those we have applied under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.”
• “After a bench trial, we review the district court’s ... factual findings for clear error.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).