Imperial Tobacco Limited, Assignee of Imperial Group Plc v. Philip Morris, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \`use' and `nonuse' [of a trademark] mean use and nonuse in the United States\
• noting that “ ‘use’ and ‘nonuse’ [of a trademark] mean use and nonuse in the United States”
• explaining that the Lanham Act requires showing “‘intent to resume use’” not merely “‘intent not to abandon’” (quoting Exxon Corp. v. Humble Expl. Co., 695 F.2d 96, 102 (5th Cir. 1983)
• explaining that the Lanham Act requires showing “‘intent to resume use’” not merely “‘intent not to abandon’” (quoting Exxon Corp. v. Humble Expl. Co., 695 F.2d 96, 102 (5th Cir. 1983)
• marketing efforts using the registered mark, but for products other than the registered product “did not excuse nonuse”
• “In every contested abandonment case, the respondent denies an' intention to abandon its mark.... [0]ne must, however, proffer more than conelu-sory testimony or affidavits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).