Kellogg Company, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Exxon Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• Explaining that the defendant, Exxon, had to prove its affirmative defense of acquiescence
• noting that “the junior use must be a commercial use in commerce”
• applying the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Frisch factors
• \Implicit in a finding of... acquiescence is the presumption that an underlying claim for infringement existed....\
• “Implicit in a finding of ... acquiescence is the presumption that an underlying claim for infringement existed.... ”
• “In order for a party to succeed on a claim of abandonment, it must prove the elements of both non-use and intent, i.e., that the other party actually abandoned its mark through non-use and that it intended to do so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).