From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Texas Pig Stands, Inc. v. Hard Rock Cafe International, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
951 F.2d 684 (1992)
Texas Pig Stands, Inc. (TPS) (plaintiff) opened its first store in 1921. TPS once had more than 100 outlets nationwide but by this point owned fewer than 10. TPS registered a trademark for “pig sandwich” (a term long and widely used in Tennessee) for its barbecue-pork sandwich. Hard Rock Cafe International, Inc. (Hard Rock) (defendant), cofounded by Tennessean Isaac Tigret, owned an international chain of restaurants. In 1982, Hard Rock’s Tennessee restaurant began selling a barbecue-pork sandwich it called a pig sandwich; Hard Rock soon sold pig sandwiches at its other locations. TPS and Hard Rock never competed in the same city at the same time. In Dallas, for example, Hard Rock opened more than a year after TPS left that market. In 1989, TPS sued Hard Rock, alleging that Hard Rock’s sale of barbecue-pork sandwiches under the pig-sandwich name in Dallas violated the Lanham Act, including by infringing on TPS’s trademark. TPS sought an award of Hard Rock’s profits, attorney’s fees pursuant to § 1117(a) of the act, and a permanent injunction against further infringement. Hard Rock argued that its use of the term pig sandwich was wholly unrelated to TPS. The jury ruled against Hard Rock on all issues and found that Hard Rock was unjustly enriched by its infringement. The district court set aside the jury’s unjust-enrichment finding as insufficiently supported by the record, reasoning that TPS effectively had no goodwill in Dallas because it abandoned Dallas before Hard Rock opened there and therefore no Hard Rock sales of barbecue pork sandwiches were due to infringement. However, the district court found this to be an exceptional case pursuant to § 1117(a) because Hard Rock (a large, prosperous company) simply disregarded the trademark rights of a smaller, struggling business, and it awarded TPS more than $400,000 in attorney’s fees. The district court also issued a permanent injunction against further infringement. Both parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, J.)
Dissent (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 619,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.