Thrifty Rent-a-Car System v. Thrift Cars, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
831 F.2d 1177 (1987)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Thrifty Rent-a-Car System, Inc. (Thrifty) (plaintiff) commenced operations in 1958. On July 26, 1964, Thrifty obtained federal trademark registration for the mark “Thrifty Rent-a-Car System.” In 1967, Thrifty opened a branch in Massachusetts. Thrifty eventually became the fifth-largest car rental agency in the world, with 23 Massachusetts locations. Thrift Cars, Inc. (Thrift) (defendant) commenced operations in East Taunton, Massachusetts in 1962. Thrift was a local outfit, limited to business in Massachusetts. As of July 26, 1964, Thrift’s business was limited to East Taunton, except for sporadic rentals to other areas of the Commonwealth. In 1970, Thrift began operations in Nantucket. Even after 1970, Thrift maintained an East Taunton address and phone number, and continued to advertise in East Taunton. Thrifty sued Thrift for trademark infringement. The parties stipulated that their names were confusingly similar. The district court (1) enjoined Thrift from operating outside of East Taunton; (2) enjoined Thrift from advertising outside of East Taunton, except in those publications in which it had advertised prior to July 26, 1964; (3) enjoined Thrifty from operating in East Taunton; and (4) enjoined Thrifty from advertising in media targeted to the East Taunton area. Both parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.