Subject to section 87-218, any person
shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant of the trade name for
any or all of the remedies provided in section 87-217 if that person shall:
(1) Use in connection with his or her business, without the
consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of a trade name registered under sections 87-208 to 87-219.01 in
a manner likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception of purchasers; or
(2) Reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate any
registered trade name and apply the reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, or advertisements
intended to be in conjunction with another business in this state; except
that the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless
the acts were committed with knowledge that the imitation was intended to
be used to cause confusion, mistake, or deception of purchasers.
Notes of Decisions
Denali Real Est., LLC v. Denali Custom Builders, Inc., 302 Neb. 984 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “DCB's argument-that by using only its true legal name, it cannot be liable for misuse of DRE's trade names-does not necessarily comport with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-216 (Reissue 2014). But, here, it is not necessary to decide that question.”
White v. Bd. of Regents, 614 N.W.2d 330 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 3× “” Section 87-216 provided that one who wrongfully used a registered trade name was civilly liable to the registrant.”
Denali Real Est. v. Denali Custom Builders, 302 Neb. 984 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “DCB’s argument—that by using only its true legal name, it cannot be liable for misuse of DRE’s trade names—does not necessarily comport with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-216 (Reissue 2014). But, here, it is not necessary to decide that question.”
Omaha Nat'l Bank v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 633 F. Supp. 231 (D. Neb. 1986).
· cites it 2× “§§ 1114 (1) and 1125(a); state trade name infringement under Neb. Rev.Stat. § 87-216 (1943), as amended; violation of the Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, R.”
Storage Concepts, Inc. v. Incontro Holdings, L.L.C. (D. Neb. 2021).
· cites it 6× “§ 1125 ; misuse of a trade name under Nebraska law, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-216 ; and deceptive trade practices under Nebraska’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NUDTPA”), Neb.”
Denali Real Est. v. Denali Custom Builders, 302 Neb. 984 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “DCB’s argument—that by using only its true legal name, it cannot be liable for misuse of DRE’s trade names—does not necessarily comport with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-216 (Reissue 2014). But, here, it is not necessary to decide that question.”
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.