Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jenzabar, Inc. v. Long Bow Group, Inc.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided October 18, 2012No. 11-P-1533Published

1DissentBerry, J.

I respectfully dissent. The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(l)(a) and 1125(a)(1)(A) (2006), prohibits Long Bow Group, Inc. (Long Bow), from using the trademark of Jenzabar, Inc. (Jenzabar), in a way that is likely to confuse Internet users to believe that the Long Bow Web site is somehow connected to, or affiliated with, Jenzabar — which it is not. This confusion, suggesting a nonexisting affiliation with Jenza-bar, is crafted through a “negative” omission of an identifying Long Bow title and a “positive” singular reference to the trade name Jenzabar. The trade name Jenzabar is thus embedded…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  2. Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  3. Mobil Oil Corporation v. Pegasus Petroleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
  4. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books Usa, Inc., a Corporation Dove Audio, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  5. Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API