No. 18-47

Thomas McClary, et al. v. Commodores Entertainment Corp.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2018-07-09
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: extraterritorial-conduct extraterritorial-jurisdiction international-commerce jurisdiction lanham-act steele-v-bulova substantial-effect trademark-enforcement trademark-standing us-commerce
Latest Conference: 2018-09-24
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. What defines the "substantial effect on United States commerce", that grants U.S. court's jurisdiction to expand the Lanham Act to extraterritorial conduct under Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 280 (1952)?

2. Does a corporation have standing to enforce a trademark without evidence of a valid transfer from individual owners of the common law mark?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

What defines the 'substantial effect on United States commerce' that grants U.S. court's jurisdiction to expand the Lanham Act to extraterritorial conduct under Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 280 (1952)?

Docket Entries

2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-08
Brief of respondent Commodores Entertainment Corp. in opposition filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
2018-07-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 8, 2018)
PetitionAppendixAppendixProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count

Attorneys

Commodores Entertainment Corp.
Lindsay Patrick Lopez — Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A., Respondent
Thomas McClary, et al.
Kevin J. Mirch — Mirch Law Firm LLP, Petitioner