No. 22-316
Lodestar Anstalt v. Bacardi & Company Limited, et al.
Response Waived
Experienced Counsel
Tags: consumer-confusion lanham-act likelihood-of-confusion section-45 trademark-enforcement trademark-infringement unfair-competition use-in-commerce
Key Terms:
Trademark Patent Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Trademark Patent Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-11-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether a plaintiff in a trademark enforcement action must prove that each use of its mark meets Section 45 of the Lanham Act's "use in commerce" definition before that use can be considered in the likelihood of confusion analysis.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a plaintiff in a trademark enforcement action must prove that each use of its mark meets Section 45 of the Lanham Act's 'use in commerce' definition before that use can be considered in the likelihood of confusion analysis
Docket Entries
2022-11-14
Petition DENIED
2022-11-14
Petition DENIED.
2022-10-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/10/2022.
2022-10-18
Waiver of right of respondent Bacardi & Company Limited, et al. to respond filed.
2022-10-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 5, 2022.
2022-10-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 3, 2022 to December 5, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-09-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2022)
2022-08-18
Application (22A153) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until September 29, 2022.
2022-08-15
Application (22A153) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 30, 2022 to September 29, 2022, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
Bacardi & Company Limited, et al.
Michael C. Lynch — Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Respondent
Lodestar Anstalt
Kendra Nychel Beckwith — Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Petitioner