Australian Gold v. Hatfield
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
436 F.3d 1228 (2006)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Australian Gold, Inc. (plaintiff) owned various trademarks related to tanning lotions that Australian Gold sold to tanning salons through independent distributors. More than half of the tanning salons in the United States carried Australian Gold’s products. Mark Hatfield and his family (Hatfields) (defendants) resold Australian Gold’s products over the Internet without Australian Gold’s permission. Knowing that Australian Gold objected to the sale of its products over the Internet, the Hatfields concealed their activities by using fictitious names to sell the products. The Hatfields also used Australian Gold’s trademarks on their websites and employed other tactics to divert Internet traffic to their sites. The Hatfields’ websites included language disavowing connections with trademark holders, but the disclaimers did not identify the specific holders. Australian Gold brought suit against the Hatfields for trademark infringement and related claims. At trial, the Hatfields moved for judgment as a matter of law on Australian Gold’s claims under the Lanham Act. The district court denied the motion, and the Hatfields appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ebel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.