In Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc., 875 F.3d 426 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit answered a question the Supreme Court left open in 1918: a junior user's actual knowledge of a senior user's mark destroys the "good faith" that the Tea Rose-Rectanus doctrine requires, as a matter of law. The infringer was no stranger who stumbled onto the name in a distant market; it was Stone Creek's own manufacturing partner, which rebuilt the STONE CREEK logo pixel by pixel and sold identical furniture to a Midwestern department-store chain for five years. This UpLaw analysis traces the doctrine from its 1916-1918 origins through Stone Creek and the good-faith split it sharpened, maps how the Lanham Act's constructive-notice (15 U.S.C. § 1072) and constructive-use (§ 1057(c)) rules interact with the limited-area defense (§ 1115(b)(5)), and explains why online commerce is quietly draining the doctrine's geographic prerequisite. It also unpacks the remedies twist: Stone Creek's willfulness-for-disgorgement holding, which the Supreme Court abrogated in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020). It closes with invented worked hypotheticals, guidance for brand owners, licensees, and litigators, an FAQ, and curated cross-references.