U-Haul International, Inc. v. Kresch

How courts have described this case

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

• denying relief to U-Haul, where competitor used three complementary phone numbers but did not advertise or promote the numbers, on the ground that receiving calls on complementary numbers intended for U-Haul is not a “use” of the mark within the meaning of the Lanham Act
• denying relief to U-Haul, where competitor used three complementary phone numbers but did not advertise or promote the numbers, on the ground that receiving calls on complementary numbers intended for U-Haul is not a \use\ of the mark within the meaning of the Lanham Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).