Source: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CourtCases/courtcases.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:18:00+00:00

Document:
Equine Technology v Equitechnology, 1995, 1st District Court of Appeals. Equine sued Equitechnology for trademark infringement and won. Equitechnology was not too bright in this case. It was a loser from the beginning. Good example of what makes up confusingly similar marks.
Kemp & Beatley v Hirsch, 34 F.2d 291 (E.D.N.Y. 1929), Hirsch directly copied copyrighted dress patterns sold by Kemp & Beatley. The court ruled the copyrights invalid because garments cannot be copyrighted.
Abercrombie & Fitch v Hunting World, 537 F.2d 4 (2nd Cir 1976). Abercrombie & Fitch was claiming exclusive rights to use "Safari" in marketing hunting clothes. The court disagreed.
American Footwear Corp. v. General Footwear Co. Ltd.,, 609 F.2d 655 C.A.N.Y., 1979. General Footwear and co-defendant Universal Studios claimed the trademark rights to the word "Bionic" based upon the TV show the Bionic Woman and the Six Million Dollar Man. The court rejected their arguments.
Matrix Essentials v Quality King, , 522 F.Supp.2d 470 (ED NY2007). L'Orel (Matrix) sued to stop "diversion" of its products. The court ruled no infringement.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Haute Diggity Dog, No. 5:07-CV-493-D. (E.D. N Car W.D. 2008). Louis Vuitton did not like the dog chew toy called "Chewy Vuiton" made by Haute Diggity Dog. Lower court ruled chew toy was a parody. Court of appeals agreed. Very good discussion of what constitutes a parody and an informative discussion on dilution and tarnishment.
Custom Dynamics v Radiantz LED Lighting 535 F. Supp. 2d 542 (E.D. NCar W.D. 2008). Custom Dynamics and Radiantz LED Lighting are business partners that had problems, and problems, and problems. And they went to court over them. Custom Dynamics tried to claim copyrignt infringement over the use of its product pictures and text. Court denied the injunction saying the copyright claims were not strong.
Smith v Wal-Mart Stores/b>, 537 F.Supp.2d 1302 (ND GA 2008). Charles Smith really does not like Wal-Mart. He began an anti-Wal-Mart campaign which included selling materials that were very negative about Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart sued claiming trademark infringement. This decision goes into a lengthy discussion of surveys as evidence. Wal-Mart lost this round as the court ruled the items to be parodies.
ProCD v. Matthew Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir, 1996). Matthew Zeidenberg bought a consumer package of SelectPhone (trademark) in 1994 from a retail outlet in Madison, Wisconsin, but decided to ignore the shrinkwrap license. ProCD sued, citing the license agreemnt. The District Court rejected the license argument and ruled for Zeidenberg. Seventh Court of Appeals reversed using faulty logic. This was a bad decision.
Ty v. Publications International, 292 F.3d 512 (7th Cir 2002). Publications International publishes several collectors guides for Beanie Babies. Ty claims they cannot without a license. Real good discussion of fair use. Court of Appeals determined fair use.
Ty v. Ruth Perryman, 306 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2002) . Ty doesn't like Perryman selling Beanie Babies using the name "Beanies". Court of Appeals vacated lower court injunction and remanded mostly in favor of Perryman. Good trademark dilution case.
Mattel vs MCA Records, 2002, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002). Mattel didn't like the song "Barbie Girl" and sued. Court found no trademark infringement.
Jordache Vs Hogg Wyld, 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987). Jordache was claiming trademark infringement over the use of "Lardashe" on jeans. Court ruled use of trademark was fair use as a parody under trademark law.
Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts Inc.,, 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008). Sevenarts, owner to the rights of Erte a designer and artist, objected to fabric depicting Betty Boop wearing an Erte gown and ordered teBay to terminate the auctions. When sued, Defendants filed to dismiss stating a lack of jurisdiction. Appeals Court found for Plaintiffs.
Fogerty v. Fantasy, 1994. Discusses the grounds for awarding attorney fees in copyright cases.
Quality King v Lanza, 98 F.3d 1109 (1998), a landmark case citing the First Sale Doctrine that was reversed by the Supreme Court..

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.