context: The resolution of Defendant Debtors' trademark infringement claim will require significant consideration of non-Title 11 federal law, satisfying SS 157(d). If left with the bankruptcy court, the complaint's trademark infringement claim will require that court to determine the validity and scope of alleged marks under the Lanham Act. (Doc. 13 at 4.) Resolution of this'claim will thus require significant consideration, interpretation, and application of the Lan-ham Act.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 676 F.3d 144, 152-53
citation_a.parenthetical: laying out a multi-part test to establish trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act and articulating "at least nine factors" relevant to one part of that test
citation_a.sentence: See In re Petition of Wuthrich, 337 B.R. 262, 268 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006) (observing, in dicta, that a Lanham Act claim and dispute over trademark’s abandonment “would likely be subject to mandatory withdraw of the reference” under § 157(d)); In re McCrory Corp., 160 B.R. 502, 505 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (holding that § 157(d) required withdrawing reference where bankruptcy court faced Lanham Act claim, partly involving the issue of “secondary meaning,” because “[interpreting Lanham Act provisions to a given set of facts is, generally, neither simple nor straightforward”); Burger King Corp. v. B-K of Kansas, Inc., 64 B.R. 728, 731 (D.Kan.1986) (holding that trademark infringement claim based on unauthorized use of mark entailed material and substan tial consideration of non-Title 11 law); see also Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 152-53 (4th Cir.2012) (laying out a multi-part test to establish trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act and articulating “at least nine factors” relevant to one part of that test); cf. In re Singer Co., N.V., No. 01 CIV. 0165, 2002 WL 243779, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2002) (holding that “whether an accused product infringes a patent requires significant and material consideration of patent law” and thus withdrawal of reference was mandatory).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 2002 WL 243779, at *3
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that "whether an accused product infringes a patent requires significant and material consideration of patent law" and thus withdrawal of reference was mandatory
citation_b.sentence: See In re Petition of Wuthrich, 337 B.R. 262, 268 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006) (observing, in dicta, that a Lanham Act claim and dispute over trademark’s abandonment “would likely be subject to mandatory withdraw of the reference” under § 157(d)); In re McCrory Corp., 160 B.R. 502, 505 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (holding that § 157(d) required withdrawing reference where bankruptcy court faced Lanham Act claim, partly involving the issue of “secondary meaning,” because “[interpreting Lanham Act provisions to a given set of facts is, generally, neither simple nor straightforward”); Burger King Corp. v. B-K of Kansas, Inc., 64 B.R. 728, 731 (D.Kan.1986) (holding that trademark infringement claim based on unauthorized use of mark entailed material and substan tial consideration of non-Title 11 law); see also Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 152-53 (4th Cir.2012) (laying out a multi-part test to establish trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act and articulating “at least nine factors” relevant to one part of that test); cf. In re Singer Co., N.V., No. 01 CIV. 0165, 2002 WL 243779, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2002) (holding that “whether an accused product infringes a patent requires significant and material consideration of patent law” and thus withdrawal of reference was mandatory).