Talk To Me Prods., Inc. v. Larami Corp., 992 F.2d 469 (2d Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Talk To Me Prods., Inc. v. Larami Corp., 992 F.2d 469 (2d Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Adipogen Corp. (ded, 2015-03-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Adipogen Corp.
D. Del. · 2015 · confidence medium
Analysis To prevail on an unfair competition claim under New York law, a plaintiff must “show that the defendant has misappropriated the labors and expenditures of another.” Talk To Me Products, Inc. v. Larami Corp., 992 F.2d 469, 470 (2d Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Warnervision Entertainment Inc. v. Empire of Carolina Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 1996 · confidence medium
Id. at 560 (declining to distinguish Windows User, Inc. v. Reed Bus.
discussed Cited "see" Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Alliance of Automotive Service Providers
S.D.N.Y. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Talk To Me Products, 992 F.2d at 470 (“Though a descriptive mark is not eligible for protection under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act absent a showing of secondary meaning, such a showing may not be necessary to prove unfair competition under New York law .... ” (citations omitted)); Bristol-Myers, 973 F.2d at 1048 (“New York law, unlike federal law, does not conclusively presume that there is no likelihood of confusion if a descriptive mark has not acquired secondary meaning.
cited Cited "see" Too, Inc. v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Talk to Me Products, Inc. v. Larami Corp., 992 F.2d 469, 470 (2d Cir.1993); Murphy Door Bed Co., Inc. v. Interior Sleep Systems, Inc., 874 F.2d 95, 102 (2d Cir.1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hawaii-Pacific Apparel Group, Inc. v. Cleveland Browns Football Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
Carter & Sons, Inc. v. William Carter Co., 913 F.Supp. 796, 802 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (quoting La Societe Anonyme des Parfums Le Galion v. Jean Patou, Inc., 495 F.2d 1265, 1271 (2d Cir.1974)); see also Talk To Me Prods., Inc. v. Larami Corp., 804 F.Supp. 555, 559 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (“The exclusive right to a distinctive mark belongs to the one who first uses it in connection with a particular line of business.”), aff 'd, 992 F.2d 469 (2d Cir.1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." K'S MERCHANDISE MART, INC. v. Kmart Corp.
C.D. Ill. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Door Sys., 83 F.3d at 172 (citing Liquid Controls, 802 F.2d at 938 ); see also Talk to Me Products, Inc. v. Larami Corp., 804 F.Supp. 555, 563 (S.D.N.Y.1992), aff'd, 992 F.2d 469 (2d Cir.1993) (finding descriptive term “Soaker” not entitled to trademark protection despite PTO’s preliminary approval of mark for registration).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pfizer Inc. v. Astra Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
Altman, 4th ed. 1993 & Supp. 1994) (collecting infringement cases and PTO opposition and cancellation proceedings where the court or the PTO denied the senior users’ claim for a family of marks where the junior user adopted his mark after a senior users’ first use but before the senior users’ second use); see also Talk to Me Products, Inc. v. Larami Corp., 804 F.Supp. 656, 563 (S.D.N.Y.1992), aff'd per curiam, 992 F.2d 469 (2d Cir.1993) (“ ‘Even if secondary meaning is acquired, it will not prevent the use of the term by one whose use had begun before the secondary meaning is acquire…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Talk to Me Products, Inc., Corporation of the State of New York
v.
Larami Corporation, a Corporation Under the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
1391.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 7, 1993.
992 F.2d 469
Published

992 F.2d 469

27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1080

TALK TO ME PRODUCTS, INC., corporation of the State of New
York, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LARAMI CORPORATION, a corporation under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1391, Docket 92-9279.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued April 19, 1993.
Decided May 7, 1993.

Gerard F. Dunne, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Gary A. Rosen, Philadelphia, PA (William T. Hangley, Hangley Connolly Epstein Chicco Foxman & Ewing, Jay K. Meadway, Panitch Schwarze Jacobs & Nadel, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Before: KEARSE and ALTIMARI, Circuit Judges, and SWEET, District Judge.[*]

PER CURIAM:

1

Plaintiff Talk to Me Products, Inc. ("TTMP"), appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles S. Haight, Jr., Judge, dismissing its complaint on the motion of defendant Larami Corp. ("Larami") for summary judgment. On appeal, TTMP contends that the district court erred in ruling (1) that "Soaker" was a descriptive mark for a toy water gun, and (2) that TTMP had not established priority over Larami in the use of the "Soaker" mark. We affirm the district court's dismissal of TTMP's federal claims substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Haight's opinion reported at 804 F.Supp. 555 (1992).

2

A state-law claim of unfair competition is not always governed by the same standards as a federal trademark claim. Though a descriptive mark is not eligible for protection under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1988), absent a showing of secondary meaning, see, e.g., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, 1040 (2d Cir.1992), such a showing may not be necessary to prove unfair competition under New York law, see Allied Maintenance Corp. v. Allied Mechanical Trades, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 538, 543 n. 2, 399 N.Y.S.2d 628, 631 n. 2, 369 N.E.2d 1162, 1164 n. 2 (1977). To prevail on the state-law claim, the plaintiff must, however, show that the "defendant has misappropriated the labors and expenditures of another." Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. v. Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037, 1044 (2d Cir.1980). Since TTMP failed to show a triable issue as to its claimed priority of use of the "Soaker" mark, the dismissal of its New York unfair competition claim was proper.

3

We have considered all of plaintiff's contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

*

Honorable Robert W. Sweet, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation