Trademark Law Updates | New Settlements and Verdicts

August 9, 2007

Yellow Cab Co. of Sacramento v. Yellow Cab Co. of Elk Grove, Inc.

2:02-cv-00704-FCD-DAD, 2007 WL 8664, E.D.Cal., 1/18/2007

Yellow Cab Co. of Sacramento v. Yellow Cab Co. of Elk Grove, Inc.


In this case for trademark infringement and unfair competition filed in connection with the trade name “Yellow Cab Co.” instituted before the United States District for the Eastern District of California, the jury rendered a defense verdict on the ground that “Yellow Cab. Co.” is not a valid, “protectable service mark” (i.e. the term is “generic”).

Detailed Summary:

In this case for trademark infringement and unfair competition, it was the assertion of plaintiff that: (1) the name “Yellow Cab Co.” has been used by it since 1917, and customers from all over Sacramento had identified such name with the company; (2) alternatively, that name has assumed a secondary meaning which should afford plaintiff trademark protection for it; (3) injunction should be issued in order to restrain defendant, which was a single-person taxi entity based in a suburb of Sacramento, from further committing the acts of infringement; and (4) damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 should be awarded, including an unspecified amount for all the profits that defendant earned since the inception of the latter’s operation.

The US District Court for the Eastern District of California earlier granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment for the reason that the term “Yellow Cab Co.” is generic, and thus not entitled to trademark protection, or alternatively, even assuming that “Yellow Cab Co.” is not generic but instead descriptive, that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of “secondary meaning” so as to provide trademark protection for the term. 

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the district court’s judgment and ordered the remand of the case for trial on the ground that plaintiff was able to present “sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact as to whether the term ‘Yellow Cab Co.’ was generic or alternatively, descriptive with acquired secondary meaning.”

After six (6) days of jury trial, the verdict was in favor of defendant on the ground that “Yellow Cab. Co.” is not a valid, “protectable service mark” (i.e. the term is “generic”).  Defendant thereafter filed motion for the award of attorney’s fees, but the district court denied such motion, on the basis that such award is “rarely justified under the statute.”  In this instance, according to the court, the case went to trial after the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment earlier rendered in favor of defendant.  Therefore, the court concluded that the filing of the case was not frivolous or done in bad faith, and would not entitle defendant the award of attorney’s fees.

Also See:

More Than $2.4 Million in Grants Released to 13 Jurisdictions to Combat Intellectual Property Theft

USPTO Seeks Comment on Possibility of Lowering Most Trademark Application Fees

USPTO Expands Trademark Law School Pilot Program

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Announces IPR Interim Final Rule

USPTO Issues TEAS 4.9 Release

The most advanced document                
         management system in the world.

Only $59 / person / month
FeaturesLawLoop Demo
FeaturesWelcome to the Future
Play LawLoop Demo

Companies Mentioned

Trademark Law

The following companies are mentioned in Trademark Law Updates:

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.

Tiffany (NJ) Inc.

Tiffany & Co.

eBay, Inc.

International Trademark Association

Haute Diggity Dog, LLC

JA Apparel Corp.

Houndstooth Corp.

Harringbone Creative Services, Inc.

Mars, Inc.

Chute Gerdeman, Inc.

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

Rockstar Games, Inc. d.b.a. Play Pen

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Shokan Coachworks, Inc.

Audi AG

University of Southern California

University of Oklahoma

Smack Apparel Company

Ohio State University

Louisiana State University

Collegiate Licensing Company

NTU Electronics, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Midway Services, Inc.

MDCO, Inc.

Custom Manufacturing and Engineering, Inc.

Automated Engineering Corp.

Internet Specialties West, Inc.

Woofies, LLC d.b.a. Woofie’s Pet Boutique

Ace-Web Internet

Sysco Corp.

The Craig Allen Company, LLC

Rescuecom Corp.

Payless Shoesource, Inc.

John Allan Company

Google, Inc.

Adidas-Salomon AG

Hansen Energy and Environmental, LLC

Bose Corp.

Adidas America, Inc.

Ly U.S.A., Inc.

Field Sanitation Solutions, Inc.

Faith Unlimited, Inc.

Wham-O, Inc.

Venture Tape Corp.

Coco U.S.A. Inc.

Marco Leather Goods, Ltd.

WMS Gaming, Inc.

Manley Toys, Ltd.

Additional Resources

Trademark Law

Further Reading in Trademark Law

Other Recent Summaries

Recent Expert Legal Commentaries