Quabaug Rubber Company v. Fabiano Shoe Co., Inc.

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 showing that the defendant’s activities are likely to cause confusion or to deceive customers suffices to warrant relief, at least in cases where injunctive relief is requested.”
• concluding that a party who was neither “registrant” nor “exclusive licensee” had no standing
• noting that an “exclusive licensee” of a trademark is an “assignee” and therefore has standing to sue under § 1114(1), and collecting sources in support
• affirming award of injunctive relief in favor of nonexclusive licensee on common law unfair competition claim
• dismissing plaintiff's claims under § 32 because plaintiff was not a \registrant\ or \exclusive licensee\ but allowing plaintiff's claim to proceed under § 43
• discussing cognate Federal rule, “the absence of an indispensable party may be raised at any time, even by a reviewing court on its own motion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).