Excell Consumer Prods. Ltd. v. Smart Candle LLC

2 Citing cases

  1. Selective Insurance Co. of America v. Smart Candle, LLC

    781 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2015)   Cited 12 times
    Applying Minnesota law

    Selective again disclaimed coverage, noting Excell's claims for infringement of its “mark” or “trademark.” Because Excell did not claim infringement of a “slogan” or “copyright,” Selective explained, it had no duty to defend or indemnify Smart Candle. Excell won its suit after a bench trial. See Excell Consumer Prods. Ltd. v. Smart Candle LLC, No. 11 C 7220, 2013 WL 4828581 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2013).In April 2013, Selective filed an action in federal court in Minnesota for a declaration that Selective owed no duty to defend or indemnify Smart Candle in the Excell lawsuit. Smart Candle counterclaimed for breach of contract.

  2. Gowanus Dredgers v. Baard

    11-CV-5985 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2013)   Cited 3 times

    See McCarthy § 3:1. Consequently, trademarks are owned by the business entity that is the source of the goods and/or services, rather than the creator of the mark. Liebowitz v. Elsevier Science Ltd., 927 F. Supp. 688, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ("whoever controls the quality of the goods marketed under the trademark is the source and therefore owns the trademark") (citing In re Polar Music Int. AB, 714 F.2d 1567, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); see generally Excell Consumer Prods Ltd. v. Smart Candle LLC, 2013 WL 4828581, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2013) (trademarks are intended to "signify that all goods bearing the trademark come from or are controlled by a single, albeit anonymous, source"); McCarthy § 16.40 ("It is fundamental that a trademark or service mark identifies a single, albeit anonymous, source."). Long ago, the Supreme Court expressly excised the concept of invention from trademarks: