Zobmondo Entertainment, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that expert testimony that “Would You Rather ... ?” had not previously been used to describe a board game was relevant to whether the mark was widely understood by consumers to refer to the type of game in question
• explaining that descriptive marks are nonetheless protectable when they have acquired a secondary meaning “as used on or in connection with the [plaintiff]’s goods or services”
• explaining that federal registration is “prima facie evidence” of a mark’s validity and “entitles the plaintiff to a strong presumption that the mark is a protectable mark”
• noting that, on remand, the trier of fact must measure competitor Zobmondo’s evidence of third party use of a mark “against the presumption of validity afforded to Falls Media's registered mark and against any other evidence of distinctiveness that Falls Media has proffered”
• describing 18 how a registrant receives a constructive-use date after a registrant’s intent-to-use application 19 becomes a registered mark
• finding 9 that evidence of third-party use of the mark, “without contextual information such as sales 10 figures and distribution locations,” does not demonstrate “long-standing customer 11 understanding”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).