Russell Road Food and Beverage v. Frank Spencer

Good Law
829 F.3d 1152·2016 WL 3947821·2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13384
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 22, 201614-16096California2,005 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wardlaw, J.

Once associated with a legendary Native American leader, “Crazy Horse” is now a registered trademark for “entertainment services, namely, exotic dance performances.” We must decide whether Russell Road’s use of the mark “Crazy Horse III” for its Las Vegas strip club infringes defendants Frank Spencer and Crazy Horse Consulting’s rights to the trademark “Crazy Horse.” The district court granted summary judgment to Russell Road, holding that it has the right to use the mark because it is the assignee of a valid trademark co-existence agreement entered into with the former owner of the registered Crazy Horse mark. We agree, and therefore affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of Russell Road.

I.

The mark “Crazy Horse” has been associated with adult entertainment since Alain Bernardin opened the celebrated Crazy Horse Saloon off the Champs-Elyseés in 1951. And it has been associated with heated trademark disputes since Bernardin sued a London imitator in 1967. See Bernardin v. Pavilion Properties, 19 R.P.C. 581 (1967). In the United States, individuals and corporations have used the “Crazy Horse” brand for motorcycle gear, whiskey, rifles, and, of course, strip and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.