Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-18T10:24:08.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Appendices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2017

Tim W. Dornis
Affiliation:
Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Germany
Type
Chapter
Information
Trademark and Unfair Competition Conflicts
Historical-Comparative, Doctrinal, and Economic Perspectives
, pp. 572 - 582
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

Appendix A Case Selection and Coding

This appendix describes the data collection process undertaken for the bird’s-eye view of US law in chapter 2 and the additional analysis in chapters 5 and 6. It provides details on the case population that I term the Steele progenythat is, US court opinions between 1952 and 2014.

1 Case Selection

The initial group of opinions was retrieved by searches in the Westlaw and LEXIS databases. Searching legal databases does not always uncover all of the disputes or court decisions on a given topic. Most problematic is the fact that not all decisions are published and thus may not be included in the databases. In addition, many disputes are settled prior to the stage of actual decision making. Limitations of this kind are not easily overcome.Footnote 1 Yet this should not make an inquiry into the empirical realities futile. On the contrary, as long as one is aware of the limitations, a closer look at “existing” case law can yield results that help critically analyze and challenge a purely doctrinally or economically founded theory of the law. In addition, a more subtle but no less pressing problem is that of the database search query itself. First, there may have been cases where neither the court nor the parties expounded on the problem of extraterritoriality despite the existence of such an issue.Footnote 2 A second challenge that must be overcome is the courts’ use of terminology. A court may discuss the issue of extraterritoriality without using the word “extraterritorial” or related vocabulary. Even though such a dispute may fit squarely into the research population, a database search that is limited to “extraterritorial” or other iterations would miss it.

As to the first problem, if a court overlooked the issue, or if it was only implicitly handled, the corresponding decision would not appear in the database search results. This deficit, however, is not detrimental to the research results. Again, since my study is intended to analyze how courts have actually handled the issue of Lanham Act subject-matter jurisdiction when confronted with it, my primary interest is in cases where the court has expressly dealt with the problem. With respect to the second problem, I used search methods and terms designed to capture all decisions included in the two databases that made any reference to Lanham Act subject-matter jurisdiction. A search in the Westlaw ALLCASES database with the connectors (trademark! trade-mark! “unfair competition” “lanham act”) and (extraterritorial! extra-territorial! bulova) yielded a total of 1,312 decisions. A search in the LEXIS Federal & State Cases, Combined, database (with identical search terms) yielded a total of 1,328 decisions. To produce the relevant population, I combined both lists. Each court opinionin other words, majority, concurring, or dissentingcontained in this combined list was then reviewed in order to determine its eligibility for the final research population.

As to the time frame occupied by the research population, I excluded cases that were decided prior to the Fifth Circuit’s and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Steele v. Bulova.Footnote 3 This limits the population of opinions to those made between January 1952 and November 2014 (the latter date being when I conducted the database research). With respect to the subject matter, I further reduced the number of cases. Not unexpectedly, the search brought up a number of cases where the courts dealt with extraterritoriality in a context different from or unrelated to trademark or unfair competition law. These cases were excluded.Footnote 4 Also in this category are decisions not directly dealing with the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, but with forum non conveniens or personal jurisdiction.Footnote 5 A different line of cases in this group concerns the issue of holding a party in contempt for violating court ordersfor example, a temporary restraining order or an injunction issued in a preceding trademark dispute.Footnote 6 Likewise excluded were scenarios presenting the “reverse, or perhaps the mirror image”Footnote 7 of the Steele and Vanity Fair constellations. In these cases, the court was concerned not with the extraterritorial scope of US laws but with the ability to gain protection for trademarks within the United States.Footnote 8 In addition, the final population does not include cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) concerning domain names and websites registered with a US registrar. Even though these cases sometimes smack of extraterritoriality, they are subject to the special rules of the 1999 ACPA and accordingly irrelevant for my inquiry.Footnote 9 Finally, I excluded all cases where the court did not make substantial use of the Bulova, Vanity Fair, or other test factors. I defined “substantial” as including an analysis beyond the mere mention of the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, the mere citation to the issue, or the mere restatement of another court’s finding on the issue.Footnote 10

2 Coding

After the database search and the manual screening and selection, a list of 140 opinions remained to be analyzed. I started by coding all opinions into an Excel spreadsheet. Once the initial case coding (consisting of three rounds) was complete, all of the coding was double-checked by research assistants who had not been involved in my earlier coding.Footnote 11 The coding instrument’s categoriesas far as the bird’s-eye view undertaken here is concernedwere designed to include (1) general information about each opinion, such as its caption, date, and court level, and (2) specific data regarding both the relations between the Bulova factors and the courts’ adherence to the common law goodwill paradigm. In this regard, the coding categories include, among other things, the result of the court’s analysis with respect to the application or nonapplication of the Lanham Act, the parties’ nationalities, and the courts’ definition and determination of the three Bulova (or Vanity Fair) factors. In addition, I coded the definition and finding of certain peculiarities, such as “constructive citizenship.” With respect to the analysis of the common law goodwill paradigmnotably in the form of the effects factor’s subfactorsI coded the different categories of subfactors and whether the courts found the respective subfactors (e.g., consumer confusion) to exist within or outside the United States. The final statistical processing was conducted using Stata 14.1. The coding instrument, Excel spreadsheet, and Stata file are available upon request.

1 For a discussion of the inherent defects and biases in database searches, see, e.g., Kimberly D. Krawiec & Kathryn Zeller, Common-Law Disclosure Duties and the Sin of Omission: Testing the Meta-Theories, 91 Va. L. Rev. 1795, 1884 et seq. (2005); Ahmed E. Taha, Data and Selection Bias: A Case Study, 75 UMKC L. Rev. 171 (2006).

2 Concerning the courts’ “blind eye” in respect of extraterritoriality, the final research population actually contains Circuit Court decisions where the lower court did not discuss the issue. See, e.g., Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp., 111 F.3d 993, 1006 (2nd Cir. 1997). See also, e.g., Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Bayer AG, 792 F.Supp. 1357 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Scotch Whiskey Ass’n v. Barton Distilling Co., 338 F.Supp. 595 (N.D. Ill. 1971); Scanvec Amiable Limited v. Chang, No. Civ.A. 02–6950, 2002 WL 32341772 (E.D. Pa., 1 November 2002).

3 The District Court’s decision in the dispute was not available.

4 This notably concerned cases on international copyright, patent, securities, or bankruptcy law. See, e.g., Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (copyright); In re Maxwell Communication Corp. plc, 186 B.R. 807, 821 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (bankruptcy); Oceanic Exploration Co. v. ConocoPhillips, Inc., No. 04–332 (EGS), 2006 WL 2711527 (D.D.C., 21 September 2006) (RICO); U.S. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. 609 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (labor law); Consolidated Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252 (2nd Cir. 1989) (securities regulation); Williams & Humbert, Ltd. v. Ruiz-Mateos, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2041 (D.D.C. 1991) (expropriation of trademark rights by foreign government).

5 See, e.g., Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 136 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Royal Gist-Brocades N.V. v. Sierra Prods., Ltd., No. CIV. A. 97–1147, 1997 WL 792905 (E.D. Pa., 22 December 1999).

6 See, e.g., Reebok Intern. Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387 (9th Cir. 1995); A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 87 F.Supp.2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Similarly, decisions affirming a preceding court order or adhering to an original decision with mere repetition of the prior court’s reasoning have been excluded. See, e.g., Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Costco Companies, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 3894(LMM), 2001 WL 262590 (S.D.N.Y., 14 March 2001).

7 Buti v. Perosa, S.R.L., 139 F.3d 98, 102 (2nd Cir. 1998).

8 One line of cases where this problem comes up is where a court must decide whether certain activities abroad are sufficient to constitute use in commerce and thereby receive US trademark protection. See, e.g., Buti v. Perosa, S.R.L., 139 F.3d 98, 102 (2nd Cir. 1998); International Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2003); General Healthcare Ltd. v. Qashat, 364 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2004).

9 See, e.g., Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003); Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002); Cable News Network, LP, LLLP v. CNNews.com, 56 Fed.Appx. 599 (4th Cir. 2003); America Online, Inc. v. Aol.Org, 259 F.Supp.2d 449 (E.D. Va. 2003).

10 See, e.g., Commodore Import Corp. v. Hiraoka & Co., Ltd., 422 F.Supp. 628, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (“Having found that no violation of [the Lanham Act] exists, I need not reach the jurisdictional defense raised by defendant … that the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act is inappropriate as to it [citation to Vanity Fair]”). For further examples of insubstantial analysis see, e.g., Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Abir, No. 97 Civ. 8673 (JGK), 1997 WL 857229 (S.D.N.Y., 19 December 1997); Liberty Toy Co. v. Fred Silber Co., 149 F.3d 1183 (6th Cir. 1998); Kashlan v. TCBY Systems, LLC, No. 4:06-CV-00497 GTE, 2006 WL 2460616 (E.D. Ark., 23 August 2006); Kolbe v. Trudel, 945 F.Supp. 1268 (D. Ariz. 1996); Internet Billions Domains, Inc. v. Venetian Casino Resort, LLC, No. 01CV5417, 2002 WL 1610032 (E.D. Pa., 31 May 2002).

11 For problems of data collection and bias in general and with respect to the fact that the data were primarily coded by the author, see, e.g., Robert M. Lawless, Jennifer K. Robbenolt & Thomas S. Ulen, Empirical Methods in Law ch. 7 and passim (2010); Lee Epstein & Gary King, The Rules of Inference, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (2002).

Appendix B Case list (Steele progeny)

  • A.T. Cross Co. v. Sunil Trading Corp., 467 F.Supp. 47 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

  • A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., No. 96 Civ. 9721PKLTHK, 98 Civ. 0123PKLTHK, 01 Civ. 9645PKLTHK, 2006 WL 90062 (S.D.N.Y., 12 January 2006).

  • A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 126 F.Supp.2d 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

  • ACG Products, Ltd. v. Gu, No. 10-cv-716-wmc, 2011 WL 7748354 (W.D. Wisc., 4 November 2011).

  • Aerogroup Intern., Inc. v. Marlboro Footworks, Ltd., 152 F.3d 948 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

  • Aerogroup Intern., Inc. v. Marlboro Footworks, Ltd., No. 97–1125, 97–1281, 97–1282, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7733 (Fed. Cir., 13 April 1998) (Gajarsa, J., dissenting).

  • Aerogroup Intern., Inc. v. Marlboro Footworks, Ltd., 955 F.Supp. 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

  • Aerogroup Intern., Inc. v. Marlboro Footworks, Ltd., 956 F.Supp. 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

  • Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 295 F.Supp.2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2003).

  • Airwair International Ltd. v. Vans, Inc., No. 5:12-CV-05060-EJD, 2013 WL 3786309 (N.D. Cal., 17 July 2013).

  • Alcar Group, Inc. v. Corporate Performance Systems, Ltd., 109 F.Supp.2d 948 (N.D. Ill. 2000).

  • American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Co-op. Ass’n, 532 F.Supp. 1376 (S.D. Tex. 1982).

  • American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Co-op. Ass’n, 701 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1983).

  • American Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., No. H-05-3227, 2006 WL 1984592 (S.D. Tex., 14 July 2006).

  • American Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 518 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2008).

  • American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. H.M. Cote, Inc., 556 F.Supp. 753 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

  • Amway v. Dyson, No. 1:97-CV-295, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15735 (W.D. Mich., 24 September 1997).

  • Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. High Impact Design & Entertainment, 642 F.Supp.2d 1228 (D. Nev. 2009).

  • Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Arco Globus Intern. Co., Inc., 150 F.3d 189 (2nd Cir. 1998).

  • Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Arco Globus Intern. Co., No. 95 CIV.6361(JFK), 1997 WL 607488 (S.D.N.Y., 29 May 1997).

  • Aurora World, Inc. v. Ty, Inc., 719 F.Supp.2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

  • Babbit Electronics, Inc. v. Dynascan Corp., 38 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 1994).

  • Baden Sports, Inc. v. Molten, No. C06-210MJP, 2007 WL 2058673 (W.D. Wash., 16 July 2007).

  • Basis Intern. Ltd. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 827 F.Supp.2d 1302 (D.N.M. 2011).

  • Bernstein v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 03 C 5256, 2004 WL 2092001 (N.D. Ill., 15 September 2004).

  • Best Western Intern., Inc. v. 1496815 Ontario, Inc., No. CV 04-1194-PHX-SMM, 2007 WL 779699 (D.Ariz., 13 March 2007).

  • Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass’n v. Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., 744 F.Supp. 700 (E.D. Va. 1990).

  • Bulova Watch Co. v. Steele, 194 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1952).

  • Bulova Watch Co. v. Steele, 194 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1952) (Russell J., dissenting).

  • C-Cure Chemical Co., Inc. v. Secure Adhesives Corp., 571 F.Supp. 808 (W.D.N.Y. 1983).

  • Calvin Klein Industries, Inc. v. BFK Hong Kong, Ltd., 714 F.Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

  • Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Caitac Intern., Inc., No. B215232, 2010 WL 3007771 (Cal. Ct. App., 3 August 2010).

  • Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. v. Mercantile Ventures, No. EP-91-CA-154-B, 1992 WL 156566 (W.D. Tex., 8 January 1992).

  • Dwyer Instruments, Inc. v. Sensocon, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-10 TLS, 2009 WL 8705579 (N.D. Indiana, 20 November 2009).

  • Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Crate & Barrel Ltd., 96 F.Supp.2d 824 (N.D. Ill. 2000).

  • Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp., 111 F.3d 993 (2nd Cir. 1997).

  • Gallup, Inc. v. Business Research Bureau (Pvt.) Ltd., No. C 08-01577 WHA, 2008 WL 4857027 (N.D. Ca., 10 November 2008).

  • Gallup, Inc. v. Business Research Bureau (Pvt.) Ltd., 688 F.Supp.2d 915 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

  • GAP, Inc. v. Stone International Trading, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 584 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

  • Gelicity UK Ltd. v. Jell-E-Bath, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 5677(ILG)(RLM), 2013 WL 3315398 (E.D.N.Y., 1 July 2013).

  • General Motors Corporation v. Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua, 948 F.Supp. 684 (E.D. Mich. 1996).

  • Gibson Brands Inc. v. Viacom Intern. Inc., No. CV 12-10870 DDP (AJWx), 2013 WL 5940826 (C.D. Cal., 5 November 2013).

  • Global Healing Center LP v. Nutritional Brands Inc., No. 4:14-CV-269, 2014 WL 897817 (S.D. Tex., 6 March 2014).

  • Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S.A. v. American Institute of Physics, 905 F.Supp. 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).

  • Groeneveld Transport Efficiency, Inc. v. Lubecore Intern., Inc., 730 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2013).

  • Guantanamera Cigar Co. v. Corporacion Habanos, S.A., 672 F.Supp.2d 106 (D.D.C. 2009).

  • Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 790 F.Supp.2d 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

  • Herb Reed Enterprises, Inc. v. Monroe Powell’s Platters LLC, No. 2:11-CV-02010-PMP-RJJ, 2014 WL 2727094 (D. Nev., 17 June 2014).

  • Hong Leong Finance Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 6010(JMF), 2013 WL 5746126 (S.D.N.Y., 23 October 2013).

  • Houbigant, Inc. v. Development Specialists, Inc., 229 F.Supp.2d 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

  • International Academy of Business and Financial Management, Ltd. v. Mentz, No. 12-cv-00463-CMA-BNB, 2013 WL 212640 (D. Colo., 18 January 2013).

  • International Business Machines Corp. v. Comdisco, Inc., No. 91 C 6777, 1993 WL 155511 (N.D. Ill., 10 May 1993).

  • International Café, S.A.L. v. Hard Rock Café International (U.S.A.), Inc., 252 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001).

  • Jackson v. Grupo Industrial Hoteleros, S.A., No. 07-22046-CIV, 2008 WL 4648999 (S.D. Fla., 20 October 2008).

  • John Walker and Sons, Ltd. v. DeMert & Dougherty, Inc., No. 84 C 7928, 1986 WL 4455 (N.D. Ill., 9 April 1986).

  • John Walker and Sons, Ltd. v. DeMert & Dougherty, Inc., 821 F.2d 399 (7th Cir. 1987).

  • Juicy Couture, Inc. v. Bella Intern. Ltd., 930 F.Supp.2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

  • King v. Allied Vision, Ltd., 807 F.Supp. 300 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

  • Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1045 (D. Or. 1997).

  • Les Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo, Inc. v. Trevino, 945 F.Supp. 563 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

  • Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Intern. Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995).

  • Libbey Glass, Inc. v. Oneida Ltd., 61 F.Supp.2d 720 (N.D. Ohio 1999).

  • Lithuanian Commerce Corp., Ltd. v. Sara Lee Hosiery, 47 F.Supp.2d 523 (D.N.J. 1999).

  • Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., No. C 07-03952 JW, 2010 WL 5598337 (N.D. Ca., 19 March 2010).

  • Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2010).

  • Love v. The Mail on Sunday, 473 F.Supp.2d 1052 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

  • Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 28 F.Supp.2d 1120 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

  • Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002).

  • Maurer Rides USA, Inc. v. Beijing Shibaolai Amusement Equipment Co., Ltd., No. 6:10-cv-1718-Orl-37KRS, 2014 WL 3687098 (M.D. Fla., 24 July 2014).

  • McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., No. 02-198-P-C, 2004 WL 2634465 (D. Me., 19 August 2004).

  • McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., No. Civ. 02-198-P-C, 2004 WL 2674360 (D. Me., 19 November 2004).

  • McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005).

  • Medimport, S.R.L. v. Cabreja, No. 12-22255-CIV, 2012 WL 3632580 (S.D. Fla., 31 July 2012).

  • Menendez v. Faber, Coe & Gregg, Inc., 345 F.Supp. 527 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).

  • Mertik Maxitrol GmbH & Co. KG v. Honeywell Technologies SARL, No. 10-12257, 2011 WL 1454067 (E.D. Mich., 13 April 2011).

  • Mertik Maxitrol GmbH & Co. KG v. Honeywell Technologies SARL, No. 10-12257, 2011 WL 2669370 (E.D. Mich., 7 July 2011).

  • New Name, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., No. CV 07-5034 PA (RZx), 2008 WL 5587486 (C.D. Ca., 25 July 2008).

  • NewMarkets Partners LLC v. Oppenheim, 638 F.Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

  • Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Aeropower Co., Ltd., 34 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 1994).

  • Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., Inc., 953 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 1991).

  • Omega S.A. v. Omega Engineering, Inc., 396 F.Supp.2d 166 (D. Conn. 2005).

  • Partners for Health and Home, L.P. v. Seung Wee Yang, Nos. CV09-07849 RZ, CV10-04073 RZ, 2011 WL 6210452 (C.D. Ca., 14 December 2011).

  • Paul E. Hawkinson Co. v. Anderson Tire & Treads, Inc., No. 11-1168 ADM/JJG, 2011 WL 4590413 (D. Minn., 30 September 2011).

  • Paulsson Geophysical Services, Inc. v. Sigmar, 529 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2008).

  • Pearl Brewing Co. v. Trans-USA Corp., No. CIV.3:96-CV-3020-H, 1997 WL 340940 (N.D. Tex., 12 June 1997).

  • Philip Morris, Inc. v. Midwest Tobacco, Inc., No. 88-1292-A., 1988 WL 150693 (E.D. Va., 4 November 1988).

  • Piccoli A/S v. Calvin Klein Jeanswear Co., 19 F.Supp.2d 157 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

  • Pinkberry, Inc. v. JEC Intern. Corp., No. CV 11-6540 PSG (PJWx), 2011 WL 6101828 (C.D. Ca., 7 December 2011).

  • Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Pub., Inc., 511 F.Supp. 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).

  • Procter & Gamble Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 96 Civ. 9123(RPP), 1998 WL 788802 (S.D.N.Y., 9 November 1998).

  • Ramirez & Feraud Chili Co. v. Las Palmas Food Co., 146 F.Supp. 594 (S.D. Cal. 1956).

  • Reebok Intern. Ltd. v. American Sales Corp., 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1229 (C.D. Cal. 1989).

  • Reebok Intern. Ltd. v. Marnachtech Enterprises, Inc., 737 F.Supp. 1515 (S.D. Cal. 1989).

  • Reebok Intern. Ltd. v. Marnachtech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.Supp. 552 (9th Cir. 1992).

  • Reebok Intern. Ltd. v. Sebelen, 930 F.Supp. 720 (D. Puerto Rico 1996).

  • Rhino Membranes and Coatings, Inc. v. Rhino Seamless Membrane System, Inc., No. H-06-2112, 2006 WL 1984606 (S.D. Tex., 14 July 2006).

  • RMS Titanic, Inc. v. Zaller, 978 F.Supp.2d 1275 (N.D. Ga. 2013).

  • Rodgers v. Wright, 544 F.Supp.2d 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

  • Roquette America, Inc. v. Alymum N.V., No. 03 Civ. 0434(DC), 2004 WL 1488384 (S.D.N.Y., 1 July 2004).

  • Scanvec Amiable Ltd. v. Chang, 80 Fed.Appx. 171 (3rd Cir. 2003).

  • Schreiber v. Dunabin, 938 F.Supp.2d 587 (E.D. Va. 2013).

  • Scotch Whiskey Ass’n v. Barton Distilling Co., 489 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1973).

  • Seed Services, Inc. v. Winsor Grain, Inc., 868 F.Supp.2d 998 (E.D. Cal. 2012).

  • Software AG, Inc. v. Consist Software Solutions, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 389(CM)(FM), 2008 WL 563449 (S.D.N.Y., 21 February 2008).

  • Southco, Inc. v. Fivetech Technology Inc., 982 F.Supp.2d 507 (E.D. Pa. 2013).

  • Space Imaging Europe, Ltd. v. Space Imaging L.P., No. 98 Civ. 2291(DC), 1999 WL 511759 (S.D.N.Y., 19 July 1999).

  • Spartan Chemical Co., Inc. v. ATM Enterprises of America, No. 83 C 2444, 1986 WL 2616 (N.D. Ill., 20 February 1986).

  • Square D Co. v. Pioneer Breaker & Supply Co., No. A-07-CA-810-SS, 2009 WL 5170211 (W.D. Tex., 18 December 2009).

  • Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. P.J. Rhodes & Co., 769 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985).

  • Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 73 S.Ct. 252, 344 U.S. 280, 97 L.Ed. 319 (1952).

  • Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 73 S.Ct. 252, 344 U.S. 280, 97 L.Ed. 319 (1952) (Reed J., dissenting).

  • Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Bayer AG, 14 F.3d 733 (2nd Cir. 1994).

  • Stevo Design, Inc. v. SBR Marketing Ltd., 919 F.Supp.2d 1112 (D. Nev. 2013).

  • The Name LLC v. Arias, No. 10 Civ. 3212(RMB), 2010 WL 4642456 (S.D.N.Y., 16 November 2010).

  • Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 71 F.Supp.2d 838 (N.D. Ill. 1999).

  • Three Degrees Enterprises, Inc. v. Three Degrees Worldwide, Inc., No. 89-5131, 1990 WL 121506 (E.D. Pa., 17 August 1990).

  • Three Degrees Enterprise, Inc. v. Three Degrees Worldwide, Inc., 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1357 (3rd Cir. 1991).

  • Tire Engineering and Distribution, LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., Ltd., 682 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2012).

  • TNT USA, Inc. v. TrafiExpress, S.A. de C.V., 434 F.Supp.2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

  • Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Costco Companies, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 3894(LMM), 2001 WL 55735 (S.D.N.Y., 23 January 2001).

  • Totalplan Corp. of America v. Colborne, 14 F.3d 824 (2nd Cir. 1994).

  • Totalplan Corp. of America v. Lure Camera Ltd., Nos. 82-CV-0698E(M) thru 82-CV-0701E(M), 1993 WL 117504 (W.D.N.Y., 12 April 1993).

  • Trader Joe’s Co. v. Hallatt, 981 F.Supp.2d 972 (W.D. Wash. 2013).

  • Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp., No. C 12-2582 CW, 2012 WL 1901264 (N.D. Ca., 25 May 2012).

  • Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp., 2012 WL 2343670 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

  • United Air Lines, Inc. v. United Airways, Ltd., No. 09-CV-4743 (KAM)(JMA), 2013 WL 1290930 (E.D.N.Y., 4 March 2013).

  • V’Soske, Inc. v. Vsoske.com, No. 00 CIV 6099 DC, 2002 WL 230848 (S.D.N.Y., 15 February 2002).

  • V’Soske, Inc. v. Vsoske.com, No. 00 Civ. 6099(DV), 2003 WL 1747144 (S.D.N.Y., 1 April 2003).

  • Van Doren Rubber Co., Inc. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., No. 89-1362 S BTM, 1989 WL 223017 (S.D. Cal., 17 October 1989).

  • Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T. Eaton Co., 133 F.Supp. 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1955).

  • Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633 (2nd Cir. 1956).

  • Versace v. Versace, 213 Fed.Appx. 34 (2nd Cir. 2007).

  • Vespa of America Corp. v. Bajaj Auto Ltd., 550 F.Supp. 224 (N.D. Cal. 1982).

  • Warnaco, Inc. v. VF Corp., 844 F.Supp. 940 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

  • Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 358 F.Supp. 1065 (D. Nev. 1973).

  • Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977).

  • Winterland Concessions Co. v. Fenton, 835 F.Supp. 529 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

  • World Book, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 354 F.Supp.2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

  • Zenger-Miller, Inc. v. Training Team, GmbH, 757 F.Supp. 1062 (N.D. Cal. 1991).

  • Zosma Ventures, Inc. v. Nazari, No. CV 12-1404 RSWL (FFMx), 2013 WL 2372231 (C.D. Cal., 30 May 2013).

Footnotes

1 For a discussion of the inherent defects and biases in database searches, see, e.g., Kimberly D. Krawiec & Kathryn Zeller, Common-Law Disclosure Duties and the Sin of Omission: Testing the Meta-Theories, 91 Va. L. Rev. 1795, 1884 et seq. (2005); Ahmed E. Taha, Data and Selection Bias: A Case Study, 75 UMKC L. Rev. 171 (2006).

2 Concerning the courts’ “blind eye” in respect of extraterritoriality, the final research population actually contains Circuit Court decisions where the lower court did not discuss the issue. See, e.g., Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp., 111 F.3d 993, 1006 (2nd Cir. 1997). See also, e.g., Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Bayer AG, 792 F.Supp. 1357 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Scotch Whiskey Ass’n v. Barton Distilling Co., 338 F.Supp. 595 (N.D. Ill. 1971); Scanvec Amiable Limited v. Chang, No. Civ.A. 02–6950, 2002 WL 32341772 (E.D. Pa., 1 November 2002).

3 The District Court’s decision in the dispute was not available.

4 This notably concerned cases on international copyright, patent, securities, or bankruptcy law. See, e.g., Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (copyright); In re Maxwell Communication Corp. plc, 186 B.R. 807, 821 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (bankruptcy); Oceanic Exploration Co. v. ConocoPhillips, Inc., No. 04–332 (EGS), 2006 WL 2711527 (D.D.C., 21 September 2006) (RICO); U.S. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. 609 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (labor law); Consolidated Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252 (2nd Cir. 1989) (securities regulation); Williams & Humbert, Ltd. v. Ruiz-Mateos, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2041 (D.D.C. 1991) (expropriation of trademark rights by foreign government).

5 See, e.g., Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 136 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Royal Gist-Brocades N.V. v. Sierra Prods., Ltd., No. CIV. A. 97–1147, 1997 WL 792905 (E.D. Pa., 22 December 1999).

6 See, e.g., Reebok Intern. Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387 (9th Cir. 1995); A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 87 F.Supp.2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Similarly, decisions affirming a preceding court order or adhering to an original decision with mere repetition of the prior court’s reasoning have been excluded. See, e.g., Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Costco Companies, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 3894(LMM), 2001 WL 262590 (S.D.N.Y., 14 March 2001).

7 Buti v. Perosa, S.R.L., 139 F.3d 98, 102 (2nd Cir. 1998).

8 One line of cases where this problem comes up is where a court must decide whether certain activities abroad are sufficient to constitute use in commerce and thereby receive US trademark protection. See, e.g., Buti v. Perosa, S.R.L., 139 F.3d 98, 102 (2nd Cir. 1998); International Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2003); General Healthcare Ltd. v. Qashat, 364 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2004).

9 See, e.g., Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003); Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002); Cable News Network, LP, LLLP v. CNNews.com, 56 Fed.Appx. 599 (4th Cir. 2003); America Online, Inc. v. Aol.Org, 259 F.Supp.2d 449 (E.D. Va. 2003).

10 See, e.g., Commodore Import Corp. v. Hiraoka & Co., Ltd., 422 F.Supp. 628, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (“Having found that no violation of [the Lanham Act] exists, I need not reach the jurisdictional defense raised by defendant … that the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act is inappropriate as to it [citation to Vanity Fair]”). For further examples of insubstantial analysis see, e.g., Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Abir, No. 97 Civ. 8673 (JGK), 1997 WL 857229 (S.D.N.Y., 19 December 1997); Liberty Toy Co. v. Fred Silber Co., 149 F.3d 1183 (6th Cir. 1998); Kashlan v. TCBY Systems, LLC, No. 4:06-CV-00497 GTE, 2006 WL 2460616 (E.D. Ark., 23 August 2006); Kolbe v. Trudel, 945 F.Supp. 1268 (D. Ariz. 1996); Internet Billions Domains, Inc. v. Venetian Casino Resort, LLC, No. 01CV5417, 2002 WL 1610032 (E.D. Pa., 31 May 2002).

11 For problems of data collection and bias in general and with respect to the fact that the data were primarily coded by the author, see, e.g., Robert M. Lawless, Jennifer K. Robbenolt & Thomas S. Ulen, Empirical Methods in Law ch. 7 and passim (2010); Lee Epstein & Gary King, The Rules of Inference, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (2002).

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Appendices
  • Tim W. Dornis, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Germany
  • Book: Trademark and Unfair Competition Conflicts
  • Online publication: 16 February 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316651285.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Appendices
  • Tim W. Dornis, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Germany
  • Book: Trademark and Unfair Competition Conflicts
  • Online publication: 16 February 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316651285.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Appendices
  • Tim W. Dornis, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Germany
  • Book: Trademark and Unfair Competition Conflicts
  • Online publication: 16 February 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316651285.008
Available formats
×