The IT Law Wiki
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
== Citation ==
'''Citation:''' Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003)([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7223987747924639695&q=337+F.3d+1036&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]).
 
  +
 
'''Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini,''' 337 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7223987747924639695&q=337+F.3d+1036&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]).
   
 
== Factual Background ==
 
== Factual Background ==
Line 8: Line 10:
   
 
The appellate court held that this use of the [[trademark|mark]] was [[prima facie]] [[trademark infringement|infringing]]. It rejected the defendant’s defense of [[nominative fair use]], on the ground that defendant’s conduct failed to meet the requirement that “the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the [[trademark|mark]], suggest [[sponsorship]] or [[endorsement]] by the [[trademark owner|trademark holder]].” Here, the court found that defendant’s “references to Pycnogenol spawn [[likelihood of confusion|confusion]] as to [[sponsorship]] and attempt to appropriate the cachet of the [[trademark]] Pycnogenol to his product.”
 
The appellate court held that this use of the [[trademark|mark]] was [[prima facie]] [[trademark infringement|infringing]]. It rejected the defendant’s defense of [[nominative fair use]], on the ground that defendant’s conduct failed to meet the requirement that “the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the [[trademark|mark]], suggest [[sponsorship]] or [[endorsement]] by the [[trademark owner|trademark holder]].” Here, the court found that defendant’s “references to Pycnogenol spawn [[likelihood of confusion|confusion]] as to [[sponsorship]] and attempt to appropriate the cachet of the [[trademark]] Pycnogenol to his product.”
 
 
[[Category:Case]]
 
[[Category:Case]]
 
[[Category:Case-U.S.-Federal]]
 
[[Category:Case-U.S.-Federal]]

Revision as of 06:49, 10 December 2010

Citation

Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (full-text).

Factual Background

Plaintiff owned the trademark “Pycnogenol” for a pharmaceutical product. The defendant sold pharmaceuticals, including plaintiff’s product, through a website. The defendant included “Pychogenol” as one of the metatags on the site.

Appellate Court Proceedings

The appellate court held that this use of the mark was prima facie infringing. It rejected the defendant’s defense of nominative fair use, on the ground that defendant’s conduct failed to meet the requirement that “the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder.” Here, the court found that defendant’s “references to Pycnogenol spawn confusion as to sponsorship and attempt to appropriate the cachet of the trademark Pycnogenol to his product.”