Las Vegas Diamondbacks, Inc. v. Arizona Diamondbacks, Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
CV-S-95-344-DWH (1995)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
The Las Vegas Diamondbacks, Inc. (LVD) (plaintiff), an amateur softball club based in Nevada, sponsored local softball tournaments in 1991 and 1992. But LVD did not sponsor another tournament until February 1995. LVD incurred almost $48,000 in expenses, mostly unrelated to advertising or promoting Diamondbacks as its name. LVD never sought federal trademark protection for “Diamondbacks” and sold virtually no Diamondbacks merchandise. In 1992, Major League Baseball (MLB) established the Arizona Fall League (AFL), which included the Chandler Diamondbacks club. In August 1993 and May 1994, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted AFL’s December 1992 and February 1993 unopposed applications to register “Chandler Diamondbacks” for federal protection. In March 1995, MLB announced it awarded an expansion club to Arizona-based bidders and that AFL was in the process of assigning its rights to “Diamondbacks” to the Arizona Diamondbacks, Inc. (AD) (defendant). AD had spent more than $390,000 advertising and promoting the Arizona Diamondbacks name, and the numerous licensees of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. (MLBP) (MLB’s exclusive licensing agent for merchandise) may have made nonrecoverable investments regarding that name. AD and MLBP have not, however, objected to LVD’s continued use of Diamondbacks. LVD sued AD and MLBP for common-law trademark infringement, seeking, among other things, a preliminary injunction prohibiting AD and MLBP from selling Arizona Diamondbacks merchandise in Nevada and Arizona. The district court conducted a hearing to address LVD’s request.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hagen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.