Civil Procedure Keyed to Mueller
Jean Alexander Cosmetics v. L’Oreal USA
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
L’Oreal USA (defendant) first used its “Shades EQ” mark in 1988. In 1992, L’Oreal started using a “modernized version” of the mark. Jean Alexander Cosmetics (Jean Alexander) (plaintiff) began using its “EQ System” mark in 1990; it registered the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in 1993. In 1996, L’Oreal attempted to register its modernized mark. The examiner rejected L’Oreal’s application based on a likelihood of confusion with the EQ System mark. L’Oreal petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel Jean Alexander’s mark, arguing that L’Oreal’s modernized mark was legally equivalent to the 1988 version and therefore had priority over Jean Alexander’s mark. Both parties litigated the matter extensively. Ultimately, the TTAB denied L’Oreal’s petition because its modernized mark was not equivalent to the original and, consequently, did not have priority. The TTAB also held, “solely for the sake of completeness,” that there was no likelihood of confusion between L’Oreal’s modernized mark and Jean Alexander’s mark. L’Oreal applied to register its modernized mark, which Jean Alexander opposed. The PTO registered the mark, and the TTAB ruled that issue preclusion prevented Jean Alexander’s opposition. Jean Alexander sued L’Oreal in federal court for trademark infringement. The court dismissed the suit based on issue preclusion. Jean Alexander appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.