TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS
Act 242 of 1969
429.31 Definitions.
Sec. 1.
As used in this act:
(a) “Trademark” means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, other than a trade name in its entirety, adopted and used by a person to identify goods made or sold by him or her and to distinguish them from similar goods made or sold by others.
(b) “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, union, or other organization.
(c) “Applicant” means the person filing an application for registration of a trademark or service mark under this act, his or her legal representatives, successors, or assigns.
(d) “Registrant” means the person to whom the registration of a trademark or service mark under this act is issued, his or her legal representatives, successors, or assigns.
(e) “Service mark” means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, other than a trade name in its entirety, adopted and used by a person in the sale or advertising of services to identify his or her services and distinguish them from the similar services of others.
(f) “Mark” includes any trademark or service mark.
(g) “Trade name” means a word or group of words used by any person to identify a sole proprietorship, firm, partnership, corporation, association, union, or other organization.
(h) A mark is “used” in this state on goods when it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or on the tags or labels affixed thereto and such goods are sold or otherwise distributed in this state, and on services when it is used or displayed in this state in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in this state.
(i) A mark is “abandoned” when its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 2 consecutive years shall be prima facie abandonment.
(j) “Administrator” means the director of commerce or his or her designated representative.
History: 1969, Act 242, Eff. Jan. 1, 1970 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 203, Eff. Oct. 1, 1984
Notes of Decisions
Janet Travis, Inc. v. Preka Holdings, LLC, 856 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 10× “9 And, consistent with the national trend toward codifying trademark law, the Michigan Legislature enacted the Trademark Act (“the Act”) in 1970, MCL 429.31 et seq., and it is this statute that concerns our Court today.”
Movie Mania Metro, Inc. v. GZ DVD's Inc., 857 N.W.2d 677 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “MCL 429.31 et seq. MCL 429.31G) states that “a mark is ‘abandoned’ when its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume.”
Interstate Brands Corp. v. Way Baking Co., 270 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1978).
“See 3 Restatement Torts, § 752; MCL 429.31; MSA 18.638(21); McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §§ 17:3-4; Anno: Trademark or Tradename — Abandonment, 3 ALR2d 1226.”
Prof'l Prop Mgt Co of Mi v. Prof'l Prop Mgt Servs LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Under the Michigan Trademarks and Service Marks Act, MCL 429.31 et seq., a trademark is “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, other than a trade name in its entirety, adopted and used by a person to identify goods made or sold by him or her and to…”
Breeze Smoke, LLC v. Speed Wholesale, Inc (E.D. Mich. 2025).
· cites it 2× “4) Count VI: Common Law Unfair Competition Michigan’s Trademark Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 429.31 et seq., permits plaintiffs to bring common law claims based on trademark infringements and unfair competition.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 429.31(a) — 2 cases
Janet Travis, Inc. v. Preka Holdings, LLC, 856 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“9 And, consistent with the national trend toward codifying trademark law, the Michigan Legislature enacted the Trademark Act (“the Act”) in 1970, MCL 429.31 et seq., and it is this statute that concerns our Court today.”
Prof'l Prop Mgt Co of Mi v. Prof'l Prop Mgt Servs LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“Under the Michigan Trademarks and Service Marks Act, MCL 429.31 et seq., a trademark is “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, other than a trade name in its entirety, adopted and used by a person to identify goods made or sold by him or her and to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 429.31(f) — 1 case
Janet Travis, Inc. v. Preka Holdings, LLC, 856 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“9 And, consistent with the national trend toward codifying trademark law, the Michigan Legislature enacted the Trademark Act (“the Act”) in 1970, MCL 429.31 et seq., and it is this statute that concerns our Court today.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 429.31(h) — 1 case
Janet Travis, Inc. v. Preka Holdings, LLC, 856 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“9 And, consistent with the national trend toward codifying trademark law, the Michigan Legislature enacted the Trademark Act (“the Act”) in 1970, MCL 429.31 et seq., and it is this statute that concerns our Court today.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 429.31(i) — 1 case
Movie Mania Metro, Inc. v. GZ DVD's Inc., 857 N.W.2d 677 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“MCL 429.31 et seq. MCL 429.31G) states that “a mark is ‘abandoned’ when its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.