Read the assigned case , summarize it and what you learned from the case and how you would apply it in a management situation.

Woodstock's Case

WOODSTOCK'S ENTERPRISES, INC. (CALIFORNIA), Appellant, v. WOODSTOCK'S ENTERPRISES, INC. (OREGON), Appellee. Notice:

[*1] RULES OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

Subsequent History:

Reported in Table Case Format at: 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 25570.

Reported at Woodstock's Enters. (Cal.) v. Woodstock's Enters. (Or.), 152 F.3d 942, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 25570 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 5, 1998) Prior History:

United States Patent and Trademark Office. Cancellation No. 21,229.

Woodstock's Enters. (Ca.) v. Woodstock's Enters. (Or), 1997 TTAB LEXIS 21 (Trademark Trial & App. Bd., June 26, 1997) Disposition:

Board's decision dismissing W-Cal's petition to cancel the registration affirmed.

Core Terms abandoned, restaurant, registration, indicates, cancel, sole owner, purchasing, license, argues, opened, marks, render a service, clear error, circumstances, registered, appeals, jointly, rights Case Summary Procedural Posture

Appellant corporation sought review of an order by the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its petition to cancel a registration owned by appellee restaurant company as to design and restaurant services. The board of appeals held that the corporation did not prove that the restaurant company had abandoned the trademark.

Overview

The sole owner of the restaurant company jointly opened related restaurants under the ownership of the corporation in another state with co-owners. Subsequently, the owner's wife became the sole owner of the restaurant company and a joint owner of the related restaurants. The wife applied for and obtained federal registration of the trademark for restaurant services for all restaurants, including those owned by the corporation. However, the wife was removed from the board of the restaurants, and the corporation petitioned the patent trademark office for cancellation of the restaurant company's trademark. The trademark appeals board dismissed the petition. The corporation sought review, arguing that the restaurant company abandoned the trademark by failing to control the quality of services rendered by the corporation's restaurants. The court affirmed, holding that the board of appeals did not clearly err in finding that the restaurant company exercised adequate control over the use of its trademark by the corporation. Members of the purchasing public continued to associate the restaurant company's services with the mark, and restaurants used similar recipes and training procedures.

Outcome

The court affirmed the determination of the patent and trademark office board of appeals that the restaurant company did not abandon its trademark, and thus the dismissal of the petition of the corporation to cancel the trademark owned by the restaurant company was proper.