Connection lost
Server error
Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab 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 owner of the famous VIRGIN mark for electronics retail sued “Virgin Wireless” for trademark infringement. The court granted an injunction, finding a high likelihood of consumer confusion because the mark is strong and arbitrary, and the products are closely related.
Legal Significance: This case reinforces that a famous, arbitrary trademark receives broad protection, extending beyond the precise goods sold to encompass closely related product categories where consumer confusion is likely, even if the senior user has not yet entered that specific market.
Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab 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
Plaintiff Virgin Enterprises Ltd. (VEL) owns incontestable U.S. trademark registrations for the VIRGIN mark for “retail store services in the fields of… computers and electronic apparatus.” VEL operates its well-known Virgin Megastores, which sell music and a variety of consumer electronics, such as portable CD players and video game systems, but not telephones. The VIRGIN mark is famous worldwide. Defendants began operating retail kiosks and stores under the trade name VIRGIN WIRELESS, selling wireless telephones, accessories, and services. Before launching, defendants retained a law firm to conduct a trademark search, but the parties disputed whether counsel advised that the VIRGIN mark was available for use in telecommunications. Defendants subsequently filed intent-to-use applications for VIRGIN WIRELESS and related marks. Around the same time, a VEL affiliate had begun offering wireless services in the United Kingdom and had plans to enter the U.S. market. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) suspended VEL’s later application for the VIRGIN mark in telecommunications due to a likely conflict with defendants’ prior filing. VEL presented evidence of actual consumer confusion, including an affidavit from a former employee of defendants stating that customers asked if the kiosk was affiliated with Virgin’s stores. The district court denied VEL’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the use of the name “Virgin Wireless” for retail stores selling telephones and related services create a likelihood of consumer confusion with the famous, incontestable “VIRGIN” mark used for retail megastores selling other consumer electronic products?
Yes. The defendants’ use of the VIRGIN WIRELESS mark was likely to 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
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
Does the use of the name “Virgin Wireless” for retail stores selling telephones and related services create a likelihood of consumer confusion with the famous, incontestable “VIRGIN” mark used for retail megastores selling other consumer electronic products?
Conclusion
The case serves as a powerful precedent illustrating the expansive scope of 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 aliq
Legal Rule
A claim for trademark infringement requires the plaintiff to show (1) 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 dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excep
Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit reversed the district court, finding its application of the 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Second Circuit reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction for
