The following excerpt is from Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Intern., Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1996):
These instructions, taken as a whole, indicate that this presumption may apply here, but also that there are several other factors to consider as well--such as the origin of the trademark, whether the defendant had federally registered the mark, which party consumers believed to be the source of the goods identified, and which party controlled the quality and design of the goods. As a result, we find that these instructions, taken as a whole, adequately cover the issues, correctly state the law, and are not misleading. See Fikes v. Cleghorn, 47 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir.1995). We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it formulated the jury instructions regarding trademark ownership.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.