Lucent Information Management, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
186 F.3d 311 (1999)
- Written by Matthew Celestin, JD
Facts
In 1995, Lucent Information Management, Inc. (LIM) (plaintiff) was formed to provide consulting services related to the sale of software and hardware. The individuals who formed LIM sought business only via word-of-mouth by reaching out to their small circle of contacts and did not pay for any public or private advertising. In October 1995, LIM made its first sale, and despite making sales presentations thereafter, LIM did not make its second sale until February 1996. Lucent Technologies, Inc. (LTI) (defendant) was a telecommunication company spun off from AT&T. In November 1995, AT&T filed in intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application to register the Lucent mark. In February 1996, AT&T mailed advertisements announcing LTI to over one million potential customers. In March 1996, LIM sent a cease-and-desist letter to LTI claiming ownership of the Lucent mark. In April 1996, LIM filed an application to register the Lucent mark for computer and office services. LIM filed suit, alleging that it owned the Lucent mark based on its prior use and that LTI therefore had infringed LIM’s trademark. LTI filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it had prior rights to the Lucent mark based on the ITU application. The district court granted the motion, and LIM appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Greenberg, J.)
Dissent (Ackerman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.
