![]() It may have been brought there from the University of Pennsylvania. It was played in and around Reading, Pennsylvania from the early 1920's to the early 1930's. The game was offered to, but rejected by, Milton-Bradley, a leading competitor of Parker Brothers. On occasion the rules were privately printed. In the early 1920's the game was played at Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Smith College, the University of Pennsylvania, and Haverford College. The game was played in Reading, Pennsylvania, sometime between 19, but this date may be a little early. All the witnesses presented by Anti-Monopoly insisted that the game was known as "Monopoly" by all who played it, although in most cases the name did not appear on the board itself. Early equipment was handmade and copied from earlier handmade equipment. At some time between 19, the game of monopoly developed. We have re-examined the entire record on appeal. "(W)hen members of the consuming public use a game name to denote the game itself, and not its producer, the trademark is generic and, therefore, invalid." Id. "(O)ne competitor will not be permitted to impoverish the language of commerce by preventing his fellows from fairly describing their own goods." Id., quoting Bada Co. "It is the source-denoting function which trademark laws protect, and nothing more." Id. We said "Even if only one producer-Parker Brothers-has ever made the MONOPOLY game, so that the public necessarily associates the product with that particular producer, the trademark is invalid unless source indication is its primary significance." Anti-Monopoly I, 611 F.2d at 302. ![]() ยง 1064(c), and no incontestable right can be acquired in such a mark. A registered mark is to be cancelled if it has become "the common descriptive name of an article," 15 U.S.C. "(W)hen a trademark primarily denotes a product, not the product's producer, the trademark is lost." Id. ![]() A word used as a trademark is not generic if "the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is not the product but the producer." Id. Here, we emphasize what we consider to be its essence. In this opinion, we assume that the reader will be familiar with that opinion. There, we set out the law about generic terms and explained how it was to be applied to the particular facts of this case. Our opinion in Anti-Monopoly I binds both this court and the district court. 2d -, and the concurrence of Justice Rehnquist: To this there is one exception: A remand is unnecessary if "the record permits only one resolution of the factual issue." (Id., citing Kelley v. The Court also held that, when a finding is based on an erroneous view of the law, it may be set aside, but that in such a case the appellate court cannot make a contrary finding, but must remand to the trial court for new findings, to be made in the light of the correct rule of law. In that case, the Court held that the rule applies equally to "ultimate" facts and to "subsidiary" facts. The Supreme Court has recently reminded us of the importance of the rule and of our duty to abide by it. On remand, after hearing further evidence, the district court again entered a judgment for General Mills. We also chose to defer consideration of (iv) Anti-Monopoly's defense that General Mills had unclean hands. We reversed and remanded for further consideration of (i) the validity of the trademark, (ii) infringement of the trademark, if it is valid, by Anti-Monopoly, and (iii) state law claims concerning unfair competition and dilution. The court entered a judgment for General Mills. The case was tried without a jury in 1976. In a counterclaim, General Mills sought declaratory and injunctive relief upholding its trademark, and the dismissal of the action. This action was then brought by Anti-Monopoly, seeking a declaratory judgment that the registered trademark "Monopoly" was invalid, and cancelling its registration. General Mills claimed that this infringed its trademark. was established to produce and sell a game it called Anti-Monopoly. Parker Brothers registered "Monopoly" as a trademark in that year. General Mills is the successor to Parker Brothers, Inc., which had produced and sold a game it called Monopoly since 1935.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |