Subject to the provisions of section 333.30 any person who shall (a) use without the consent of the registrant any mark on or in connection with rendering of services, selling, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods or services, which mark is identical to or so similar to the registered mark as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake on the part of a purchaser of the goods or services or to deceive such a purchaser as to the source or origin of the goods or services; or (b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such 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 conjunction with the sale or other distribution of such goods or the sale or rendering of services: shall be liable to a civil action by the owner of such registered mark for any or all of the remedies provided in section 333.29, except that under subsection (b) hereof the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that such mark is intended to be used to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.
Notes of Decisions
Minneapple Co. v. Normandin, 338 N.W.2d 18 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 4× “*22 Assuming that the Minneapple design is entitled to trademark protection, the burden of proof was on The Minneapple Company to establish infringement by showing that Normandin’s design is “identical to or so similar to the registered mark as to be likely to cause confusion or…”
Regents of the Univ. v. Applied Innovations, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 698 (D. Minnesota 1987).
· cites it 4× “Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to establish a trademark infringement and unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act, under Minn.Stat. § 333.28 or under Minnesota common law.”
Powerlift Door Consultants, Inc. v. Shepard (D. Minnesota 2023).
· cites it 4× “Powerlift’s ninth claim alleges that Defendants are engaging in trademark infringement, in violation of Minnesota law, see Minn. Stat. § 333.28 , by improperly using Powerlift’s trademarks in a manner that is likely to deceive the public as to the nature of Defendants’ and…”
Powerlift Door Consultants, Inc. v. Shepard (D. Minnesota 2023).
· cites it 4× “Powerlift’s ninth claim alleges that Defendants are engaging in trademark infringement, in violation of Minnesota law, see Minn. Stat. § 333.28 , by improperly using Powerlift’s trademarks in a manner that is likely to deceive the public as to the nature of Defendants’ and…”
Powerlift Door Consultants, Inc. v. Shepard (D. Minnesota 2021).
· cites it 3× “Powerlift’s ninth claim alleges that Defendants are engaging in trademark infringement in violation of Minnesota law, see Minn. Stat. § 333.28 , by improperly using Powerlift’s trademarks in a way that is likely to deceive the public as to the nature of Defendants’ and…”
3M Co. v. Nationwide Source Inc. (D. Minnesota 2021).
“3M’s seventh claim alleges that Nationwide is engaging in trademark infringement, in violation of Minnesota Statutes § 333.28, by using 3M’s trademarks in a way that is likely to deceive the public as to the nature of Nationwide’s and 3M’s relationship.”
— Minn. Stat. § 333.28(a) — 1 case
Regents of the Univ. v. Applied Innovations, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 698 (D. Minnesota 1987).
“Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to establish a trademark infringement and unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act, under Minn.Stat. § 333.28 or under Minnesota common law.”
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.