The Seattle Trademark Lawyer reports on a 9th Circuit decision affirming ownership of the mark MUSTANG RANCH. It's a long saga, where the government seized the ranch and all its property then stumbled around for years trying to figure out what to do with it. David and Ingrid Burgess then adopted the mark and later sued the eventual purchaser of the government's rights, Lance Gilman. Gilman survived challenges of his ownership based on abandonment and assignment in gross.
Seattle Trademark Lawyer post here. News reporting of trial court decision here. Description of the history of the ranch and the various transfers in Burgess v. Gilman, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1773, 2006 WL 449212 (D. Nev. Feb. 23 2006).
© 2008 Pamela Chestek
Thursday, September 11, 2008
There's Only One Mustang Ranch
Labels:
abandonment,
assignment in gross,
Mustang Ranch,
seizure,
trademark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2011
(85)
-
►
December
(10)
- Walter Mercado Still Losing
- Just Another Skirmish or the War?
- Giving An Idea to Your Employer
- Beneficial Owners Don't Have Standing
- Zombie Department Stores Rise (as ugly t-shirts)
- Must All Trademark Owners be Joined?
- Who Owns the Mark Used by a Bunch of People?
- Bratz Copied, But Didn't Infringe
- When You Can Change the Name of the Registrant
- It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time
-
►
June
(13)
- How to Steal a Trademark
- Sibling Rivalry
- Privity as a Sword
- The Coup de GrĂ¢ce for Pooh?
- When Are You a "Distributor"?
- Righthaven's Failed Assignment Agreement
- Important New Patent Ownership Decision!
- Abandoned, No Surprise
- Surprise - Wittmann Can't Call His Product "Wittma...
- There Has to Be Confusion
- Moral Rights versus Economic Rights
- Rejected Trademark License
- Think of the Trademark Too
-
►
December
(10)
0 comments:
Post a Comment