Connection lost
Server error
Anti-Monopoly, Inc., and Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., and Counter-Claimant-Appellee Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The maker of “Anti-Monopoly” sued to invalidate the “Monopoly” trademark. The court found “Monopoly” had become a generic term for a type of real estate trading game, primarily signifying the product, not its producer, and was therefore no longer a valid trademark.
Legal Significance: This case established the “primary significance” test for genericness, focusing on consumer perception. It demonstrates how a once-valid trademark can lose protection through “genericide” if the public comes to understand the mark as the name of the product itself, rather than its source.
Anti-Monopoly, Inc., and Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., and Counter-Claimant-Appellee Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
General Mills Fun Group, Inc. (General Mills), successor to Parker Brothers, held the registered trademark for the board game “Monopoly,” first registered in 1935. Anti-Monopoly, Inc. began selling a game called “Anti-Monopoly” in 1973. Anti-Monopoly sued for a declaratory judgment that the “Monopoly” trademark was invalid because it had become a generic term. The district court, on remand from a prior appeal (Anti-Monopoly I), again found the trademark valid. The evidence centered on consumer surveys. One survey, modeled on the Thermos case, showed 80% of consumers wanting to buy “this kind of game” would ask for “Monopoly.” Another “motivation survey,” designed to follow the circuit court’s instructions in Anti-Monopoly I, asked purchasers to choose between two statements. 65% chose “I want a ‘Monopoly’ game primarily because I am interested in playing ‘Monopoly,’ I don’t much care who makes it,” while only 32% chose “I would like Parker Brothers’ ‘Monopoly’ game primarily because I like Parker Brothers’ products.” The district court rejected this survey evidence and found that “Monopoly” primarily denoted its producer.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Has a registered trademark for a game become a generic term, and thus invalid, when the primary significance of the mark in the minds of the consuming public denotes the product itself rather than the product’s source?
Yes. The court reversed the district court, holding that the trademark “Monopoly” Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sin
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Has a registered trademark for a game become a generic term, and thus invalid, when the primary significance of the mark in the minds of the consuming public denotes the product itself rather than the product’s source?
Conclusion
The case serves as a critical precedent on trademark genericide, establishing that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol
Legal Rule
A registered trademark becomes generic and is subject to cancellation if its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolo
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit applied the "primary significance" test it had articulated in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore mag
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A trademark becomes generic if its primary significance to the public