Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
686 F.3d 1376 (2012)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 2002, through a settlement agreement, Lens.com, Inc. (defendant) obtained the trademark registration for the mark LENS in connection with computer software used for electronic ordering of contact lenses in certain medical fields, which belonged to a specified class of goods. Lens.com was in the business of selling contact lenses to customers online. Customers would go to the Lens.com website and click links and input information with the possible goal of ordering contact lenses, which, if ordered, Lens.com delivered to its customers. In 2008, 1-800 Contacts, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a cancelation proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the board), alleging in part that the LENS mark had been abandoned because Lens.com had never offered or sold computer software using the mark. Lens.com countered that it delivered software to its customers during the ordering process, such as an applet. The board granted summary judgment in favor of 1-800 Contacts and ordered cancelation of registration for the LENS mark. The board found that Lens.com’s delivery of software was merely incidental to the company’s retail sale of contact lenses and thus the software was not a “good” in trade that had intrinsic value for the purpose of maintaining a trademark registration. Lens.com appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Linn, 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.