no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
'''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]).
== Factual Background ==
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-U.S.-Federal]]
|