Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12393 (2017)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Stone Creek, Inc. (plaintiff) was a furniture manufacturer and retailer with five showrooms in the Phoenix, Arizona area. Stone Creek used a mark consisting of a red oval surrounding the words Stone Creek, for which it obtained state trademark protection in 1992. Stone Creek federally registered the mark in 2012. Omnia Italian Design, Inc. (Omnia) (defendant) was a manufacturer of leather furniture. In 2003, Omnia and Stone Creek entered into a contract under which Omnia manufactured furniture for Stone Creek branded with the Stone Creek mark. In 2013, Stone Creek learned that for several years Omnia had also been using the Stone Creek mark to sell furniture in the Midwest without Stone Creek’s permission. Stone Creek filed suit, alleging that Omnia had engaged in federal and common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The district court found that there was no likelihood of confusion and ruled in favor of Omnia. On Stone Creek’s appeal, Omnia argued, among other things, that its use was protected under the Tea Rose–Rectanus doctrine, which provided that a subsequent good-faith user could acquire rights in areas that were geographically removed from the original user’s territory.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKeown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.