Zero Transportation, LLC v. Scottsdale Taxi Sedan Service Co.

27 Cited authorities

Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,299 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
Permanent v. Lasting
543 U.S. 111 (2004) Cited 336 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding defense available even where likelihood of confusion established
Harris v. Rivera
454 U.S. 339 (1981) Cited 477 times
Holding that "[i]nconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside" in a federal habeas corpus proceeding
Precision Co. v. Automotive Co.
324 U.S. 806 (1945) Cited 1,083 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that clean-hands doctrine "presupposes [a court of equity's] refusal ... to be the ‘abetter of iniquity’ " (quoting Bein v. Heath , 47 U.S. 228, 247, 6 How. 228, 12 L.Ed. 416 (1848) )
Leelanau v. Black
502 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2007) Cited 125 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding where mark is descriptive, "its registration must have been on the basis of the PTO's determination that mark had obtained a secondary meaning"
Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 109 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark
Sanders v. Melvin
873 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2017) Cited 89 times
Interpreting Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
Blau Plumbing, Inc. v. S.O.S. Fix-It, Inc.
781 F.2d 604 (7th Cir. 1986) Cited 161 times
Holding that a "location box" in an advertisement was descriptive and lacked secondary meaning
Burke-Parsons-Bowlby v. Appalachian Log Homes
871 F.2d 590 (6th Cir. 1989) Cited 86 times
Holding that " trademark that is primarily geographically descriptive must have acquired secondary meaning to invoke the protection of the Lanham Act."
Cosmetically Sealed Industries, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's USA Co.
125 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 52 times
Holding that phrase "Sealed With a Kiss" was a non-trademark, descriptive use because it conveyed an instruction
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 14,184 times 36 Legal Analyses
Stating that evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" and "the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Zero Transportation, LLC v. Scottsdale Taxi Sedan Service Co.

27 Cited authorities

Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

Holding defense available even where likelihood of confusion established

Holding that "[i]nconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient reason for setting it aside" in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

Holding that clean-hands doctrine "presupposes [a court of equity's] refusal ... to be the ‘abetter of iniquity’ " (quoting Bein v. Heath , 47 U.S. 228, 247, 6 How. 228, 12 L.Ed. 416 (1848) )

Holding where mark is descriptive, "its registration must have been on the basis of the PTO's determination that mark had obtained a secondary meaning"

Holding that it is the opposer's burden to prove fame of its mark

Interpreting Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Holding that a "location box" in an advertisement was descriptive and lacked secondary meaning

Holding that " trademark that is primarily geographically descriptive must have acquired secondary meaning to invoke the protection of the Lanham Act."

Holding that phrase "Sealed With a Kiss" was a non-trademark, descriptive use because it conveyed an instruction

Stating that evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" and "the fact is of consequence in determining the action"