From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...
TMT North America v. Magic Touch
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
124 F.3d 876 (1997)
Magic Touch GmbH (Magic Touch) (defendant), a German company, had developed a specially coated paper that could be used to transfer images onto fabric. Magic Touch contracted with a United States distributor, TMT North America, Inc. (distributor). While under contract with Magic Touch, the distributor filed applications to register two trademarks related to the paper product with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, although the distributor’s president and vice-president testified that they always understood Magic Touch to be the owner of the trademarks. It was unclear whether Magic Touch’s principal knew that the trademark registrations were in the distributor’s name, not Magic Touch’s. Another company with the same name as the distributor, TMT North America, Inc. (TMT) (plaintiff), purchased the distributor’s assets, and in the asset purchase agreement, the distributor represented that it owned the trademarks and was transferring them to TMT. However, in drafts of a distributorship agreement between Magic Touch and TMT that was never signed, Magic Touch represented that it owned the trademarks and would assign them to TMT. Magic Touch and TMT continued their distribution relationship without a written contract for about two years until TMT acquired another source for the raw paper product and no longer needed Magic Touch’s paper. TMT sued Magic Touch, seeking to establish its ownership of the trademarks and to prevent Magic Touch from using them. The district court entered a preliminary injunction in favor of TMT, finding that although the distributor had not acquired ownership of the trademarks by registering them, Magic Touch knew that the distributor claimed ownership and that the distributor intended to assign the trademarks to TMT. The district court reasoned that Magic Touch’s silence toward TMT regarding the ownership of the trademarks could be construed as acquiescence and estopped Magic Touch from claiming ownership of the trademarks. Magic Touch appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kanne, 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 607,000 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 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 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.