Windsurfing International Inc. v. Amf Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 15 U.S.C. § 1064 (c) does not authorize suits for cancellation in district courts
• stating that the plaintiffs asserted desire to use the trademark, rather than actually using it, is insufficient to establish a conflict
• finding that absent use of the trademark there could not be adverse legal interests between the parties
• stating that mere desire to use a mark does not constitute a justiciable controversy
• analyzing section 1119 and opining that “[t]here must . . . be something beyond the mere competitor status of the parties to serve as a basis for the court’s jurisdiction. Such a basis may, for example, be a suit for trademark infringement . . . .” (citation omitted)
• no case or controversy where record showed that declaratory plaintiff was not using contested mark

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).