Lucent Information Management, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “many other courts have refused to recognize trademark ownership by a party that can only point to limited sales -”
• “For advertising alone to constitute use it must be of a sufficient clarity and repetition to create the required identification and must have reached a substantial portion of the public that might be expected to purchase the goods.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lucent Information Management, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 1999-08-03· cited 71×
• J & J Snack Foods, Corp. v. Earthgrains Co.
  D. New Jersey· 2002-09-25· cited 40×
• Cortes v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey
  D. New Jersey· 2005-05-05· cited 37×
• S Industries, Inc. v. Stone Age Equipment, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 1998-06-23· cited 22×
• Lucent Information Management, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 1998-03-24· cited 13×
• Dalkita, Inc. v. Distilling Craft, LLC
  D. Colorado· 2018-12-19· cited 10×
• Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2007-06-07· cited 9×
• Joint Stock Society v. UDV North America, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 1999-05-24· cited 9×
• Eat BBQ LLC v. Walters
  E.D. Kentucky· 2014-09-18· cited 8×
• McDonald's Corp. v. Burger King Corp.
  E.D. Michigan· 2000-06-13· cited 7×
• InterState Net Bank v. NetB@ Nk, Inc.
  D. New Jersey· 2004-12-14· cited 5×
• Sweetwater Brewing Co. LLC v. Great American Restaurants, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2003-05-16· cited 5×
• Aktiesels-kabet af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2006-01-30

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
• Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1938-12-05· cited 414×
• Scott Paper Company, a Corporation v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., a Corporation
  Third Circuit· 1978-12-12· cited 279×
• Interpace Corporation v. Lapp, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 1983-11-18· cited 247×
• Fisons Horticulture, Inc., in No. 93-7224 v. Vigoro Industries, Inc., in No. 93-7287
  Third Circuit· 1994-07-22· cited 227×
• Zazu Designs, a Partnership v. L'oreal, S.A.
  Seventh Circuit· 1992-12-28· cited 152×
• Colburn v. Upper Darby Township
  Third Circuit· 1991-10-10· cited 120×
• Blue Bell, Inc. v. Farah Manufacturing Company, Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1975-04-04· cited 98×
• Natural Footwear Ltd. v. Hart, Schaffner & Marx
  Third Circuit· 1985-04-19· cited 87×
• Hydro-Dynamics, Inc. v. George Putnam & Company, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1987-02-11· cited 70×
• Unnamed case
  Third Circuit· 1996-10-18· cited 60×
• T.A.B. Systems v. Pactel Teletrac
  Federal Circuit· 1996-02-28· cited 41×
• Talk to Me Products, Inc. v. Larami Corp.
  S.D. New York· 1992-10-21· cited 22×
• Windows User, Inc. v. Reed Business Publishing Ltd.
  S.D. New York· 1992-05-22· cited 18×
• WarnerVision Entertainment Inc. v. Empire of Carolina Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1996-02-12· cited 11×
• Steer Inn Systems, Inc. v. Laughner's Drive-In, Inc.
  Customs and Patent Appeals· 1969-02-13· cited 10×
• Warnervision Entertainment Inc. v. Empire Of Carolina
  Second Circuit· 1996-11-27· cited 6×
• Warnervision Entertainment Inc. v. Empire of Carolina, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 1996-11-27· cited 6×