This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P operates long-term parking lots near airports. P registered a service mark consisting of the logo of an airplane and the words 'Park 'N Fly.' The registration issued in August 1971. Six years later, P filed an affidavit to establish the incontestable status of the mark. D also provides long-term airport parking services. D calls its business 'Dollar Park and Fly.' P filed this infringement action and requested the court permanently to enjoin D from using the words 'Park and Fly.' D argued that P's mark is unenforceable because it is merely descriptive. The District Court found that the mark is not generic and observed that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged on the grounds that it is merely descriptive. The court found sufficient evidence of likelihood of confusion. The District Court permanently enjoined D from using the words 'Park and Fly' and any other mark confusingly similar to 'Park 'N Fly.' The Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that incontestability provides a defense against the cancellation of a mark, but it may not be used offensively to enjoin another's use. It held that D could defend the infringement action by showing that the mark was merely descriptive. It held that P's mark was merely descriptive, and D should not be enjoined from using the name 'Park and Fly.' P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.