Legal Opinion
Autozone, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.
District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Decided November 9, 2001No. 3:99-0884PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
WISEMAN, ¿Senior District Judge.
Plaintiffs AutoZone, Inc. and Speedbar, Inc. (together “AutoZone” or “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against defendant Tandy Corp. (“Tandy” or “Defendant”). The complaint sets forth five claims: (1) service mark and trademark infringement; (2) trade name infringement; (3) breach of contract; (4) unfair competition; and (5) service mark and trademark dilution. Defendant moves for summary judgment on each of Plaintiffs’ claims. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in its entirety.
I. Relevant Facts
In 1979, AutoZone’s predecessor,…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Abercrombie & Fitch Company v. Hunting World, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Union Carbide Corporation v. Ever-Ready Incorporated, a Corporation, and Mark Gilbert, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Autozone, Inc. And Speedbar, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
- Anthony Vince Nail Spa, Inc. v. M Vince Nail Spa, LLCDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2021
- AutoZone Inc v. Tandy CorpCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004