Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett

492 F.3d 876 (2007)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
C
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
492 F.3d 876 (2007)

Facts

In 1985, Central Manufacturing, Inc. and Stealth Industries (Central) (plaintiffs), which were owned by Leo Stoller, registered “Stealth” as a trade name and mark for a number of different products, including sporting goods. However, Brett Brothers Sports International, Inc. (Brett Brothers) (defendant), which was owned by George Brett (defendant), began selling “Stealth” baseball bats in 1999 and sold more than 25,000 Stealth bats worldwide. In 2001, Central specifically applied to register “Stealth” as a trademark for the use of baseball bats, and Central’s application was granted in 2004. After obtaining trademark protection, Central brought a claim against the defendants for violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. The district court granted Brett Brothers’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Stoller and Central could not produce any documents showing a bona fide intent to use the mark “Stealth” in commerce. The district court cancelled Central’s trademark registration of “Stealth” for baseball bats. Furthermore, because of Stoller’s excessive and frivolous use of trademark-infringement litigation, the district court awarded attorney’s fees and defense costs to Brett Brothers. Central appealed the district court’s decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Evans, 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 806,000 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 806,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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

Casebooks

Trademark

Key Terms