Lawn Managers, Inc. v. Progressive Lawn Managers, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
959 F.3d 903 (2020)
- Written by Philip Glass, JD
Facts
Linda Smith and Randy Zweifel shared ownership and management of Lawn Managers, Inc. (plaintiff) for 17 years while married. As part of their divorce agreement, they divided the assets of Lawn Managers between themselves, with Smith’s portion renamed Progressive Lawn Managers, Inc. (Progressive) (defendant). Progressive obtained property formerly in the exclusive possession of Lawn Managers. The two entities operated in the same region, which permitted Lawn Managers’ employees to take notice of Progressive’s performance. Progressive obtained access to Lawn Managers’ credit for equipment-purchasing purposes, hired ex-Lawn Managers employees, and ran online advertising that referred to Lawn Managers’ years in operation as Progressive’s own. Lawn Managers licensed the use of the name “Lawn Managers” to Progressive for a two-year licensing period, after which Lawn Managers registered its name as a trademark. Thereafter, Lawn Managers initiated a suit against Progressive for trademark infringement. Progressive defended its use of the name by claiming that Lawn Managers had granted it a naked license. The trial court found in favor of Lawn Managers, and Progressive appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelly, J.)
Dissent (Kobes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.