A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
- AND Entitlement to sue and protected commercial interest
Kroma EU illustrates enforcement rights reserved to the licensor; mere economic interest is insufficient in that contractual setting. Article III injury and statutory cause-of-action entitlement are distinct. Lexmark’s specific commercial-injury test is set out separately for advertising.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) licensing/enforcement-reserved-to-licensor 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/920/0704-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019 — not - AND Use in commerce connected with goods or services
VersaTop rejects importing registration/affixation requirements into infringing advertising use. Current territorial limit: Abitron (2023) confines §1125(a)(1) to domestic infringing use in commerce; U.S. consumer confusion alone does not supply domestic conduct. Official update is recorded in NOTES, not silently attributed to the 2019 case.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) infringing-use/trade-show-brochures 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/921/1364-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019 — satisfied - AND Judicial zone-of-interests limit to commercial injury
Lexmark’s zone-of-interests inquiry limits the statutory cause of action. A business suing only as a disappointed purchaser is like an ordinary consumer; commercial loss must fit the protected interest.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) zone-of-interests/reputation-and-sales 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /us/572/0118-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — satisfied - AND Commercial advertising or promotion
Commercial speech disseminated to the relevant purchasing audience to influence buying. A false statement in any private dispute or investor communication is not automatically advertising. Genus’s old circuit formulation included competition; do not import that as a universal bar after Lexmark or later circuit decisions. Advertising/promotion remains an independent statutory requirement.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) assumed-coverage/letters-and-cartridge-notices 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/572/0118-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — applied/merits
audience/investor-filings-and-calls 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — not - AND Judicial actual-deception or tendency-to-deceive requirement
Louisiana-Pacific applies a presumption for literal falsity but demands audience evidence for a misleading statement; dissemination or intent to persuade alone does not prove deception. Injunction versus damages posture affects proof of injury and relief.
2 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) implied-approval/general-compliance-website 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — not implied-approval/pharmacist-survey 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — satisfied misleading-truth/audience-reach-without-takeaway 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
- AND Statutory person including state entities and officials
Subsection (a)(2) expressly includes states, instrumentalities and official-capacity employees. Statutory inclusion does not itself overcome sovereign immunity; apply state-immunity separately.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- DEFENSE Good-faith descriptive use other than as a mark
This defense does not require defendant to prove absence of all confusion. Nominative use and expressive-use analysis are separate and jurisdiction-sensitive. Jack Daniel’s (2023) rejects the special Rogers threshold when the challenged designation is used as a mark for defendant’s own goods; parody may still affect confusion.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) descriptive-use/sports-nutrition-slogan 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/932/0589-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied - AND Judicial domestic infringing-use limit
Judicial territorial construction of the statutory use-in-commerce hook, shared across these (a)(1) claims. Domestic consumer confusion alone does not replace domestic infringing conduct. The Court did not comprehensively define every domestic-use scenario; the particular uses must be identified.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Misleading affiliation approval or sponsorship
Require a qualifying designation or representation likely to mislead about affiliation, connection, origin, sponsorship or approval. False endorsement may concern a persona rather than a plaintiff-owned registered mark. Dastar limits origin-of-goods theory to producers of tangible goods, not authorship of uncopyrighted ideas; copyright cannot be recreated through a false-origin label.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) origin-of-goods/public-domain-video-copying 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /us/539/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not - AND False or misleading factual representation
The quoted Ninth Circuit test, reproduced in Genus, identifies deception, materiality, commerce and causal injury distinctly. Factual claims are assessed in context; nonverifiable puffery generally cannot be proven false.
2 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) hypothetical-advertising/claimed-difference-from-copied-video 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/539/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — rule-announced/hypothetical
literal-falsity Objectively false factual statement, including unambiguous necessary implication where recognized. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot literal-falsity/ambiguous-termite-damage 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
literal-falsity/retouched-woodpecker-image 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
literal-falsity/topical-route-label 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — satisfied misleading-description/generic-search-summary 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — satisfied misleading-truth Facially true but misleading representation, normally requiring evidence of audience takeaway. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot puffery/pests-love-it 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
- AND Likely consumer confusion about source or sponsorship
VersaTop is a Federal Circuit decision applying Ninth Circuit law. The cited Sleekcraft factors are flexible, not a nationwide arithmetic formula. Actual confusion is relevant evidence but not mandatory proof of likely confusion. Remedies may require evidence beyond liability.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) confusion/reverse-confusion 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/932/0589-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — rule-announced/merits
market-overlap/identical-marks-and-goods 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/921/1364-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019 — satisfied - AND Judicial materiality requirement for purchasing decisions
Judicial element specified in the five-part Genus/Wells Fargo test under false-fact: the falsehood must matter to purchasing. Literal falsity does not by itself remove materiality from the claim. This is separate from proof that a statement is deceptive.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Claimant proves nonfunctionality
Nonfunctionality prevents permanent trademark monopoly on useful features. Bodum’s full functionality paragraph includes utilitarian and competitive-necessity tests; do not confuse usefulness of the underlying product with necessity of the particular claimed design.
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) evidence/utility-patent-exclusion 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/927/0486-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
product-design/ornamental-coffee-press 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/927/0486-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — satisfied utility-patent/dual-spring-road-sign 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /us/532/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — not - AND Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress
Protectability is doctrinal; ownership/enforceable licensing rights, priority, distinctiveness and territorial scope must be established. SportFuel states the trademark species test, not a universal requirement for every subsection (a) theory.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) acquired Descriptive marks require secondary meaning; generic terms cannot be monopolized as marks. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot inherent Arbitrary, fanciful or suggestive source identifiers may be inherently distinctive. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot ownership/uncontested-product-names 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/921/1364-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019 — satisfied product-design Product-design trade dress requires secondary meaning; nonfunctionality is independently required. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot product-design/secondary-meaning-required 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/529/0205-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — rule-announced/merits
secondary-meaning/functional-design 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/532/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — applied/merits
- AND Judicial proximate-causation requirement
Direct injury is not synonymous with direct competition. Merely derivative landlord/supplier losses normally fail; Lexmark discusses the particular close causal linkage alleged by Static Control, not universal recovery for every upstream supplier.
2 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) direct-reputational-injury/disparaged-component-supplier 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /us/572/0118-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — satisfied linked-sales/one-chip-per-cartridge 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /us/572/0118-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 — satisfied - AND Remedy-specific proof
Romag (2020): willfulness is not an absolute prerequisite to profits for §1125(a), though mental state remains important in equity. Do not transplant §1125(c) famous-mark/dilution requirements or §1125(d) cybersquatting into subsection (a).
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) preliminary-injunction/no-likelihood-of-success 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
profits/doubling-to-deter 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/539/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — applied/procedural
- DEFENSE State sovereign immunity unless a valid route permits suit
Judicial constitutional limit, not a statutory exemption from (a)(2). Do not equate every local government or official with an immune state, or assume statutory coverage alone authorizes the requested remedy. College Savings Bank concerned misrepresentations of the state's own product; do not turn its fact-specific abrogation reasoning into a complete rule for all intellectual-property suits.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
15usc1125:mark-infringement
covered-defendant & domestic-use & commerce-use & protected-mark & likely-confusion & actionable-interest & !descriptive-fair-use & !state-immunitySection 1125(a)(1)(A) trademark/false-origin species. Protectable mark and confusion are conjunctive. This formula is not a claim that every false-endorsement plaintiff must own a registered trademark.
15usc1125:false-association
covered-defendant & domestic-use & commerce-use & false-association & actionable-interest & !state-immunitySection 1125(a)(1)(A) false affiliation, sponsorship or approval; includes appropriate false-endorsement claims, with injury/entitlement assessed under the applicable theory.
15usc1125:unregistered-trade-dress
covered-defendant & domestic-use & commerce-use & protected-mark & nonfunctional-dress & likely-confusion & actionable-interest & !state-immunitySection 1125(a)(3) expressly assigns nonfunctionality proof to the claimant. Product-design dress also needs acquired distinctiveness; mere novelty or copying does not establish source identification.
15usc1125:false-advertising
covered-defendant & domestic-use & commerce-use & commercial-promotion & false-fact & consumer-deception & materiality & commercial-injury & proximate-cause & !state-immunitySection 1125(a)(1)(B). Literal falsity and misleading truth are evidentiary alternatives within false-fact/consumer-deception, not substitutes for commercial injury. Direct competition is not a Lexmark standing requirement. Remedies have additional conditions.
Constraints
No constraints recorded.