TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS
Act 242 of 1969
429.42 Improper use, reproduction or imitation; damages.
Sec. 12.
Subject to the provisions of section 14, any person who shall:
(a) Use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of a mark registered under this act in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive as to the source of origin of such goods or services; or
(b) Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with the sale or other distribution in this state of such goods or services; is liable to a civil action by the owner of the registered mark for any or all of the remedies provided in section 13, except that under subdivision (b) of this section the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that the mark is intended to be used to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.
History: 1969, Act 242, Eff. Jan. 1, 1970
Notes of Decisions
Janet Travis, Inc. v. Preka Holdings, LLC, 856 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 14× “Plaintiff sued defendant for trademark infringement under MCL 429.42 in Macomb Circuit Court, and the court granted an injunction under MCL 429.”
Movie Mania Metro, Inc. v. GZ DVD's Inc., 857 N.W.2d 677 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “A plaintiff that claims trademark infringement under MCL 429.42 must show that (1) the mark the plaintiff claims to hold is valid, in that it actually functions as a trademark, (2) the plaintiff holds priority in the mark, i.”
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Van Dyke Liquor Mkt., Inc., 471 F. Supp. 2d 822 (E.D. Mich. 2007).
· cites it 3× “§ 1125 (c) Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition Count V: Statutory Unfair Competition, MCL 429.42(a) Count VI: Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.”
Robertson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 890 F. Supp. 671 (E.D. Mich. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Mich.Comp.Laws § 429.42. Thus, it is not as if product confusion (and other trademark infringements) will go unredressed absent competitors being given standing to sue under the MCPA.”
Parks v. LaFace Records, 76 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, plaintiff has not established that she has any common law trademark rights in her name, or that defendants made any trademark use of her name.”
Express Welding, Inc. v. Superior Trailers, LLC, 700 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
“§ 429.42; a determination that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for trademark infringement under Michigan common law; a determination that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for tortious interference with business relationships; a determination that the…”
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Zoom Enter., Inc., 809 F. Supp. 2d 692 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
· cites it 4× “1125(C), (4) unfair competition under the common law of the state of Michigan, (5) statutory unfair competition pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 429.42 , and (6) violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, as identified by Mich.”
H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Square Wear LLC (E.D. Mich. 2020).
· cites it 2× “(Count V), Michigan Trademark Infringement, under MCL § 429.42 et. seq. (Count VI), Unfair Competition, under MCL § 445.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 429.42(a) — 2 cases
Janet Travis, Inc. v. Preka Holdings, LLC, 856 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Plaintiff sued defendant for trademark infringement under MCL 429.42 in Macomb Circuit Court, and the court granted an injunction under MCL 429.”
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.