Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me! "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

This information is taken directly from the court opinion. It is not taken out of context nor is it altered. Relevant footnotes are included at the bottom.

From Belltronics USA v Midwest Inventory, 562 F. 3d 1067 (10th Cir 2009) 1. First Sale Doctrine Those who resell genuine trademarked products are generally not liable for trademark infringement. See Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int’l Corp., 263 F.3d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001); NEC Elecs. v. CAL Circuit Abco, 810 F.2d 1506, 1509 (9th Cir. 1987). “The reason is that trademark law is designed to prevent sellers from confusing or deceiving consumers about the origin or make of a product, which confusion ordinarily does not exist when a genuine article bearing a true mark is sold.” NEC Elecs., 810 F.2d at 1509 (citing Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359, 368–69 (1924)). See also United States v. Giles, 213 F.3d 1247, 1252 (10th Cir. 2000) (“‘[T]he purpose of trademark law is . . . to guarantee that every item sold under a trademark is the genuine trademarked product, and not a substitute.’”) (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Speicher, 877 F.2d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 1989)). Accordingly, under the “first sale” doctrine, “the right of a producer to control distribution of its trademarked product does not extend beyond the first sale of the product.” Australian Gold, 436 F.3d at 1240–41 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). In our circuit’s only case evaluating this doctrine in connection with a Lanham Act claim, we observed that “the essence of the ‘first sale’ doctrine [is] that a purchaser who does no more than stock, display, and resell a producer’s product under the producer’s trademark violates no right conferred upon the producer by the Lanham Act.” Id. at 1241 (quotations omitted).