Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
52 F.3d 867 (10th Cir. 1995)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Phillip Stanfield (plaintiff) designed a heating pad for newborn hogs and other agricultural products. Stanley and Ronald Thibault were the president and vice-president of Osborne Industries, Inc. (Osborne) (defendants). Osborne manufactured Stanfield’s products in exchange for royalties on the sales. Osborne also hired Stanfield as an employee. When Osborne decided to develop a trademark for Stanfield’s products, Stanfield insisted that the word “Stanfield” appear in the mark. Osborne agreed, and entered into a licensing agreement with Stanfield to license the Stanfield mark for 15 years. Osborne developed two marks using the word “Stanfield” and registered the marks with the Patent and Trademark Office. Two months later, Stanfield resigned from Osborne and was no longer involved with the company in any way. After Stanfield’s 15-year licensing agreement with Osborne expired, Osborne continued to use the marks over Stanfield’s objection. Among other claims, Stanfield sued Osborne for trademark infringement. Osborne argued that Stanfield had abandoned his rights to the marks by executing a naked license with Osborne. A naked license gives a licensee use of a trademark without the licensor exercising control over the quality of type of goods bearing the mark. The district court found for Osborne. Stanfield appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tacha, 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.
