Central Manufacturing Vs Brett Bros Case Study

747 Words3 Pages
Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett et al. 492 F. 3d 876(7th Cir. 2007) United States District Court Facts of the Case The case features Central Manufacturing “Central” a company that registers “stealth” trademark for baseballs bats, as the plaintiff and Brett Brothers "Brett Bros." as the defendants. Central proceeded to the court to accuse Brett Bros of infringing states laws by manufacturing baseballs with the same name. Leo Stoller, the alleged owner of the Stealth Mark, had registered the mark in 2001 alongside other sporting goods. However, this came after Brett Bros had made their first sale of the bat with the Stealth trademark in 1999, and had sold up to 25,000 pieces of them by 2007. The case was heard in the United States District…show more content…
of producing a baseball bat that had the same name as the one they had registered in 2001. George Brett, the owner baseball Hall of Famer, owns part of Brett Bros. Leo Staller, to whom the baseball bat was registered in 2001, had not used the trademark for commerce. This is as opposed to Brett Bros., which made its first sale of the bat with a stealth trademark in 1999, two years before Stoller allegedly registered the trademark. Stoller had licensed the mark and sent letters to some companies like Kmart, Panasonic, to "cease and desist" from using the mark. Stoller also demanded $100,000 as damages for the…show more content…
The ownership of the mark could have been more valid if Stoller had used it in commerce. This gave Brett Bros. room to argue that the mark had never been used in commerce, and Brett Bros. had used it, making them the original owners of the mark. The court also granted attorney’s fee to Brett Bros. because Stoller failed to provide concrete evidence of ownership of the mark, and the court branded the documents presented as evidence as a "mockery of the proceedings." The case moved to the Court of Appeal, and the Court upheld the decisions of the District Court, granting the cancellation of the mark and attorney 's fee for Brett Bros. Lesson Learnt From the Case One of the most important lessons learnt in this case is that ownership of any trademark can be rebutted if credible evidence is provided. It may also be important to learn that ownership of a mark can be more credible if it has been used in commerce to affirm that other entrepreneurs do not reserve the brands and increase the prices for their competitors ' products. Applications to a Sport

More about Central Manufacturing Vs Brett Bros Case Study

Open Document