Lever Brother Co. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
981 F.2d 1330 (1993)
- Written by Ryan McCarthy, JD
Facts
Lever Brother Company (Lever) (plaintiff) sold dish-washing soap in the United States and, through an affiliate, in Great Britain under identical trademarks. Each trademark was registered in each country. The soaps and packaging were formulated differently to suit the two markets accordingly. An unauthorized gray market for the products caused the British soap to be imported and sold in the United States, resulting in consumer complaints directed at Lever. Lever brought suit against the United States Customs Service (Customs) (defendant) on the grounds that § 42 of the Lanham Act prohibited the import of the soap from Britain containing a United States trademark. Customs relied on a federal regulation that created an exception to § 42 for goods bearing a foreign trademark, if the company that owned the foreign trademark was under common ownership with the company that owned the United States trademark. Customs argued that the exception to § 42 was valid, because § 42 only prohibits the use of a trademark that copies or simulates a United States trademark. The district court found that the exception did not comply with the plain meaning of § 42 and granted summary judgment in favor of Lever. Customs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sentelle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.
