- Joined
- Sep 1, 2003
- Messages
- 327
- Reaction score
- 0
Scott Fetzer Co. v. House of Vacuums Inc., No. 03-51118 (5th Cir, August 12, 2004)
Quote: "We agree with the district court that no reasonable jury could conclude that House of Vacuums misappropriated the KIRBY mark in any way."
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/03/03-51118-CV0.wpd.pdf
Summary:
Limiting the reach of trademark dilution law, the Fifth Circuit held that a manufacturer could not stop an independent repair shop from using the manufacturer's mark to advertise that it repaired and sold the manufacturer's product. The defendant advertised in a telephone directory that it repaired Kirby vacuum cleaners, which are manufactured by Scott Fetzer Co. In addition to pressing a trademark infringement claim (which also failed), the plaintiff argued that the defendant tarnished the Kirby mark by repairing Kirby vacuum cleaners with used parts, creating inferior Kirby cleaners. To allow trademark owners to assert this type of claim, the court held, would allow manufacturers to stifle independent repair shops and second-hand sales.
http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/342.htm
You may be interested in another case linked there:
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., No. 02-57148 (9th Cir. August 6, 2004)
Quote: "We agree with the district court that no reasonable jury could conclude that House of Vacuums misappropriated the KIRBY mark in any way."
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/03/03-51118-CV0.wpd.pdf
Summary:
Limiting the reach of trademark dilution law, the Fifth Circuit held that a manufacturer could not stop an independent repair shop from using the manufacturer's mark to advertise that it repaired and sold the manufacturer's product. The defendant advertised in a telephone directory that it repaired Kirby vacuum cleaners, which are manufactured by Scott Fetzer Co. In addition to pressing a trademark infringement claim (which also failed), the plaintiff argued that the defendant tarnished the Kirby mark by repairing Kirby vacuum cleaners with used parts, creating inferior Kirby cleaners. To allow trademark owners to assert this type of claim, the court held, would allow manufacturers to stifle independent repair shops and second-hand sales.
http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/342.htm
You may be interested in another case linked there:
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., No. 02-57148 (9th Cir. August 6, 2004)
