Alderman v. Iditarod Properties, Inc.

32 P.3d 373 (2001)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...

Alderman v. Iditarod Properties, Inc.

Alaska Supreme Court

32 P.3d 373 (2001)

Facts

The Fourth Avenue Theater opened in 1947 and was considered to be a historic landmark in Anchorage, Alaska. Iditarod Properties, Inc. (Iditarod) (plaintiff) purchased the theater in 1991 and restored the theater to its original appearance and continued to use the theater’s original name. Iditarod had a falling out with Caleb and Barbara Alderman (defendants), trolley operators who had a parking and a rental arrangement with Iditarod. Shortly thereafter, the Aldermans registered the name “Fourth Avenue Theater Trolley Tours.” Beginning in the fall of 1997, the Aldermans used that name to conduct their trolley-tour business. In the spring of 1998, Iditarod launched its own a trolley-tour business under the trade name “Fourth Avenue Theater,” such that the parties’ respective trade names were both in use for trolley tours during the 1998 tourist season. Iditarod sued the Aldermans for trade-name infringement. During trial, Iditarod submitted evidence that its trade name “Fourth Avenue Theater,” though descriptive, had acquired secondary meaning, including three customers’ use of that trade name in letters, the appearance of the Fourth Avenue Theater in various articles and trade journals, and advertising. The jury found that Iditarod’s trade name “Fourth Avenue Theater” had attained secondary meaning prior to the Aldermans’ first use of “Fourth Avenue Theater Trolley Tours” in the fall of 1997. Also, both sides acknowledged that actual confusion between the parties’ respective trade names occurred once Iditarod launched its own trolley-tour business. However, the Aldermans argued that there could be no likelihood of confusion without direct competition, such that protection was limited only to goods or services that existed at the time the Aldermans registered “Fourth Avenue Theater Trolley Tours.” The jury ultimately found for Iditarod on its trade-name-infringement claim. The Aldermans appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Carpeneti, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 629,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 37,200 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership