Citation network
Park N' Fly Inc. Vs. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 08, 1985
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Park N' Fly Inc. v. DollarSearch
-
Park and Fly, Inc. - 469 U.S. 189 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Park N' Fly Inc. v. DollarSearch
-
Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) Park N' Fly Inc. v. DollarSearch
-
d) The Court of Appeals was not justified in relying on its decision in Tillamook County Creamery v. TillamookSearch
-
Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-ReadySearch
-
A generic term is one that refers to the genus of which the particular product is a species. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. HuntingSearch
-
that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose. See American Tobacco Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
geographic areas if the subsequent user adopted the mark without knowledge of prior use. See Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSearch
-
the previous rule that the validity of a trademark could be attacked at any time. See White House Milk Products Co. v. Dwinell-WrightSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
determinations reflected in the statute, but instead to construe and apply the provisions that Congress enacted. v. TheSearch
-
legislative history of the Lanham Act. Instead, the court relied on its previous decision in Tillamook County Creamery v. TillamookSearch
-
used to obtain relief from an infringing use. Tillamook 's authority for this proposition was John Morrell & Co. v. ReliableSearch
-
rights. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit based its holding in John Morrell on Rand McNally & Co. v. ChristmasSearch
-
authority providing the most direct support for the decision below, was subsequently overruled in Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-ReadySearch
-
on the incontestable status of a trade or service mark in an infringement action. See, e.g., United States Jaycees v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
Soweco, Inc. v. ShellSearch
-
defensive distinction with respect to the use of an incontestable mark. See Ansull Co. v. MalterSearch
-
alleged infringement, the Court treats the case as though it presented the same question as Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-ReadySearch
-
The case that petitioner principally urges in support of reversal, Union Carbide Corp., v. Ever-ReadySearch
-
its plain meaning if a showing was made that the mark had not been properly registered in the beginning. See Edwards v. DennisSearch
-
Jackson & Co. v. NapperSearch
-
United States v. ErikaSearch
-
Cf. Stafford v. BriggsSearch
-
See Otto Roth & Co. v. UniversalSearch
-
Bada Co. v. MontgomerSearch
-
cert. denied, 400 U.S. 916 (1970). Additionally, before the Lanham Act was enacted, this Court, in Canal Co. v. ClarkSearch
-
Quoting Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. v. SpearSearch
-
or estoppel is asserted. Several courts have indicated that such defenses are allowed. See, e.g., Prudential Ins. Co. v. GibraltarSearch
-
Financial Corp. 694 F.2d 1150, 1153 (CA9 1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1208 (1983), Cuban Cigar Brands N.V. v. UpmannSearch
-
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V.ESearch
-
Haviland & Co. v. JohannSearch
-
Porter v. WarnerSearch
-
Virginian R. Co. v. RailwaySearch
-
Griffin v. OceanicSearch
-
Garcia v. UnitedSearch
-
American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. DonovanSearch
-
Reiter v. SonotoneSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Park N' Fly Inc. v. DollarSearch
-
Tillamook County Creamery v. TillamookSearch
-
Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-ReadySearch
-
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. HuntingSearch
-
See American Tobacco Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
See Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSearch
-
See White House Milk Products Co. v. Dwinell-WrightSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial