PARK N FLY VS DOLLAR PARK N FLY

FACTS OF THE CASE:

 Petitioner operates a long-term parking lot near the airport of St. Lousi Cleveland
Boston. Later on it applied to UNITED STATES PATENT and TRADEMARK OFFICE in order
to register the the logo of an airlane and the words “Park n Fly”. The said registration
was issued on 1971 after 6 years nag file ng affidavit si petitioner with the P and T O to
solidify the status of the mark as provided by the lanham act which opines that the
registration is a conclusive evidence of the registrants exclusive right to the use of the
registered mark.
 On the otherhad, the respondent provides ong-term airport parking services called
Dollar Park and fly which operates only In port land.
 Petitioner then filed an infringement action which seeks to forbid the respondent from
using the work PARK AND FLY
 DISTRICT COURT rejected the defense of the respondent that the petitoners mark is only
descriptive in nature.
 COURT OF APPEALS HELD: that incontestability cannot be used offensively to forbid
anothers use of the said mark but may be used as defense against the cansellation of a
mark

ISSUE OF THE CASE: WHETHER THE HOLDER OF A REGISTERED MARK MAY RELY ON
INCONTESTABILITY TO ENJOIN INFRINGEMENT.

RULING OF THE CASE:

1. First, nowhere in Lanham act which distinguish the offensive and defensive use of
incontestable mark other than a declaration that the said registrant has the exclusive
right to use the mark that incontestable status may be used to enjoin infringement.
2. Furthermore, Lanham acts Legislatative History
Creser Precision System INC. VS. CA and FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP.