Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 132.02 (2026)
Duplication or reproduction
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
132.02(1)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or union of workingmen, without the consent of the owner of any mark, to remove any such mark attached to merchandise or products of labor, for the purpose of using such merchandise or products of labor as a pattern for the duplicating or reproduction of the same, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance thereto as may be calculated to deceive.
132.02(2)(2) Nothing herein contained shall be taken to prohibit the using of such merchandise or products of labor as a pattern for the reproduction of the same in individual cases of emergency repairs.
132.02(3)(3) It shall be unlawful for any other person to make use, with intent to deceive, of that mark or any counterfeit mark which is identical to or substantially identical to that mark, or to utter or display the same orally, or in any printed or written form in the conduct of his or her business or any business transaction without the express consent, license, and authority of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or union so owning the same, and such unauthorized and unlawful use may be prohibited and prevented by injunction or other proper proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction without recourse to the penal statute providing a punishment for such unlawful use. In case such association or union of workingmen is not incorporated such actions may be commenced and prosecuted by an officer or member of such association or union on behalf of and for the use of such association or union. This subsection does not apply to the purchase of merchandise in good faith from a distributor or the retail sale of that merchandise in good faith.
132.02 AnnotationState action based on an alleged trademark infringement under sub. (3) was not removable to federal court because of federal registration of trademarks. The federal act does not preempt reliance on state trademark laws. Gardner v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 383 F. Supp. 151 (1974).
132.02 AnnotationRegistration of a mark does not alone confer rights to the claimant. Mil-Mar Shoe Co. v. Shonac Corp., 906 F. Supp. 476 (1995).
132.02 Annotation21st Century White Collar Crime: Intellectual Property Crimes in the Cyber World. Simon & Jones. Wis. Law. Oct. 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: Gardner v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 383 F. Supp. 151 (E.D. Wis. 1974).
Gardner v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 383 F. Supp. 151 (E.D. Wis. 1974). “Gardner, a Clark dealer, from continued alleged infringement of Clark’s state trademarks in violation of Section 132.02 (3), Wisconsin Statutes. On October 4, 1974, petitioner Gardner removed the action to this court.”
Madison Reprograhics, Inc. v. Cook's Reprographics, Inc., 552 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “" The court also considered the language in § 132.02(3), STATS., that makes it unlawful to "make use, with intent to deceive, of that mark or any counterfeit mark which is identical to or substantially identical to that mark.”
Boxx Sanitation, LLC v. Express Disposal, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2021). “Plaintiff Boxx Sanitation, LLC, is asserting only state-law claims in its complaint: Wis. Stat. § 132.02 , common-law trademark infringement, and Wis.”
Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. BRYK Enter. LLC (W.D. Wis. 2023). “Quincy also asserted state-law claims for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, Wis. Stat. §§ 132.02 and 132.033. Quincy sought statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees.”
— Wis. Stat. § 132.02(3) — 2 cases
Gardner v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 383 F. Supp. 151 (E.D. Wis. 1974). “Gardner, a Clark dealer, from continued alleged infringement of Clark’s state trademarks in violation of Section 132.02 (3), Wisconsin Statutes. On October 4, 1974, petitioner Gardner removed the action to this court.”
Madison Reprograhics, Inc. v. Cook's Reprographics, Inc., 552 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “" The court also considered the language in § 132.02(3), STATS., that makes it unlawful to "make use, with intent to deceive, of that mark or any counterfeit mark which is identical to or substantially identical to that mark.”
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.