Lane Capital Management, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Lane Capital Management, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant

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 defendant bears the burden of rebutting the presumption of protectability by a preponderance of the evidence.
• holding that a defendant bears the burden of rebutting the presumption of protectability by a preponderance of the evidence.
• noting that the defendant, in rebutting a presumption of validity, need only show that it is “more likely than not” that the relevant mark is not distinctive
• defining arbitrary marks as “common words applied in unfamiliar ways” and holding that such marks are inherently distinctive
• “express[ing] no view regarding[] the merits of the [unlawful use] defense,” but affirming the district court’s denial of a party’s “belated motion to amend [its] answer to add this defense”
• “[T]he relevant purchasing public is not the population at large, but prospective purchasers of the product.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).