Cluster 727770 (1996)
green
· 71 citation events
across 15 courts.
Showing the 8 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199620112026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Tammy Taylor Nails, Inc. v. Viljoen (2025)
(ECF No. 5 ¶¶ 22, 25; ECF No. 20, 8 Exs. 21–23); Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219 (9th Cir.), as 9 modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he party claiming ownership [of the mark] 10 must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or services.”).
“[T]he party claiming ownership [of the mark] 10 must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or services.”
green
Rogozinski v. Reddit, Inc. (2024)
As set forth below, the Court is not persuaded. 23 In trademark law, “the standard test of ownership is priority of use.” See Sengoku 24 Works Ltd. v. RMC Int'l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219 (9th Cir.), as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 25 (9th Cir. 1996).
green
T.R.P. Company, Inc. v. Similasan AG (2020)
To acquire ownership of a 12 trademark it is not enough to have invented the mark first or even to have registered it first; the party claiming ownership 13 must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or services. 14 15 Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219 (9th Cir.), as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 16 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing J.
citing J. Thomas McCarthy, 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 17 16.03 (3d ed. 1996)
green
Zamfir v. Casperlabs, LLC (2022)
See Sengoku 28 Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1220 (9th Cir.), as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 1 (9th Cir. 1996). “[I]n other words, if the non-registrant can show that he used the mark in 2 commerce first, then the registration may be invalidated.” Id. 3 First, CasperLabs contends that Zamfir’s allegations “demonstrate that his 4 consulting services were about Casper but not called ‘Casper,’ dooming his trademark- 5 cancellation and infringement claims.” (See Mot. …
In cases involving a trademark dispute “between a manufacturer and distributor, courts will look first to any agreement between the parties regarding trademark rights.” Haggar, 906 F. Supp. 2d at 111 (quoting Tecnimed SRL v. Kidz- Med, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 395, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff’d, 462 F. App’x 31 (2d Cir. 2012)); see also Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1220 (9th Cir.), as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Premier Dental Products v…
citing Premier Dental Products v. Darby Dental Supply Co., 794 F.2d 850 , 854 (3d Cir. 1986)
green
Olson Kundig Inc v. 12th Avenue Iron Inc (2022)
See Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219-20 (9th Cir.), as 10 modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996); Zobmondo Entm’t, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 11 F.3d 1108 , 1114 (9th Cir. 2010).
green
Zamfir v. Casperlabs, LLC (2021)
See Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1220 (9th Cir.), as 2 modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996).
green
Pinterest Inc. v. Pintrips Inc. (2014)
See Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 , 1219 as modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir.1996) (“It is axiomatic in trademark law that the standard test of ownership is priority of use.”).