Cluster 781990

Trade dress “refers to the design or packaging of a product which serves to identify the product’s source.” Shire US Inc. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (8d Cir. 2003) (citing TrafFix 34 Devices, Inc. v. Mkig.

Unlike patents, trade dress does not protect “innovative aspects of product design.” Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Plan, 671 F. Supp. 2d 88 , 98–102 (D.D.C. 2009), an out-of-circuit decision by a district court cited for persuasive value only, see Shire US Inc. v. Barr Lab’ys Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 355 (3d Cir. 2003) (district court decisions treated as persuasive authority); United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 , 259 n.27 (3d Cir. 2012) (“Of course, the decisions of other circuits, while persuasive, are not binding on the district courts in this Circuit.”). 27 Mary acted “directly” or “ind…

“The purpose of trade dress protection is to ‘secure the owner of the trade dress the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers.’” McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 F.3d 350, 357 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003)).

For those reasons, the Bankruptcy Court’s factual finding that the Third Modified Plan was feasible was not “completely devoid of a credible evidentiary basis[,]” and certainly had a “rational relationship to the supporting data.” Shire US Inc. v. Barr Lab’ys Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003).

“The purpose of trade dress protection is to ‘secure the owner of the trade dress the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers.’” McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 F.3d 350, 357 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003).

Rogers v. Corbett, 468 F.3d 188, 192 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Kos Pharms., Inc., 369 F.3d at 708 ); McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, 511 F.3d 350, 356-57 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Shire U.S. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Because “[t]rade dress protection . . . is not intended to create patent-like rights in innovative aspects of product design,” it “extends only to incidental, arbitrary or ornamental product features which identify the product’s source.” Shire US Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

The District Court shall not reverse a feasibility finding unless the Bankruptcy Court’s factual findings are “completely devoid of a credible evidentiary basis or bear[ ] no rational relationship to the supporting data[.]” Id. (quoting Shire U.S., Inc. v. Bar Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Trade dress protection under the Lanham Act protects “incidental, arbitrary or ornamental product features which identify the product’s source.” Shire U.S., Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003); 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a); see also, Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 (3d Cir. 2014).

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

Thus, the Court will only reverse the Bankruptcy Court’s decision if “it is completely devoid of a credible evidentiary basis or bears no rational relationship to the supporting data.” Shire US Inc. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 355 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Am.

Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228, 234 (3d Cir. 2002); Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003).

Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 355 (3d Cir. 2003).

Def’s Br. 16, 21. “‘Trade dress’ refers to the design or packaging of a product which serves to identify the product’s source.” Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act includes protection for a party’s “trade dress,” which “has been defined as the total image or overall appearance of a product, and includes, but is not limited to, such features as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, or even a particular sales technique.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Rose Art Indus., Inc. v. Swanson, 235 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2000)). “[T]rade dress pr…

First, the trade dress design is valid in that it is non-functional. “[T]he primary test for determining whether a product feature is functional is whether the feature is essential to the use or purpose of the product or whether it affects the cost or quality of the product.” Shire US Ine. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 354 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz GMBH v. Ritter GMBH, 289 F.3d 351, 356 (5th Cir. 2002)).

I disagree. “‘Trade dress’ refers to the design or packaging of a product which serves to identify the product’s source.” Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Courts must consider the following four factors when ruling on such motions: “(1) the likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits; (2) the extent to which the moving party will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief; (3) the extent to which the nonmoving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is issued; and (4) the public interest.” Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003).

“The purpose of trade dress protection is to ‘secure the owner of the trade dress the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers.’” McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 F.3d 350, 357 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Only “incidental, arbitrary or ornamental product features which identify the product’s source” are protectable as trade dress. 4 Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003).

Section 43(a) includes protection for a party’s “trade dress,” which “has been defined as the total image or overall appearance of a product, and includes, but is not limited to, such features as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, or even a particular sales technique,” and is the “overall look of a product or business.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 (3d Cir.2014) (quoting Rose Art Indus., Inc. v. Swanson, 235 F.3d 165, 171 (…

“The purpose of trade dress protection is to ‘secure the owner of the trade dress the goodwill of his business and to' protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers.’ ” McNeil *806 Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 F.3d 350, 357 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir. 2003)).

Inc., 634 F.3d 79, 106 (2d Cir.2011), and should not be overturned unless the factual findings are “completely devoid of a credible evi-dentiary basis or bear[ ] no rational relationship to the supporting data,” Shire U.S., Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 28-29 , 121 S.Ct. 1255 , 149 L.Ed.2d 164 (2001). “ ‘Trade dress’ refers to the design or packaging of a product which serves to identify the product’s source.” Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir.2003).

“To establish infringement of its unregistered trade dress a plaintiff must prove that (1) the allegedly infringing feature is non-functional, (2) the feature is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning, and (3) consumers are likely to confuse the source of the plaintiffs product with that of the defendant’s, product.” Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 353 (3d Cir.2003).

Shire US Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003).

To obtain a preliminary injunction on a Lanham Act claim, a court must consider “(1) the likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits; (2) the extent to which the moving party will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief; (3) the extent to which the nonmoving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is issued; and (4) the public interest.” McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 F.3d 350, 356-57 (3d Cir.2007) (citing Sh…

Rather, we may reverse a finding of fact only if it is “devoid of a credible evidentiary basis or bears no rational relationship to the supporting data.” Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003).

Reversal is appropriate “only if [the factual finding] is completely devoid of a credible evidentiary basis or bears no rational relationship to the supporting data.” Shire U.S., Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003) (quoting Am.

Under this standard, reversal is appropriate “only if [the factual finding] is completely devoid of a credible evidentiary basis or bears no rational relationship to the supporting data.” Shire U.S., Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003) (quoting Am.

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003) (citations omitted). “[Wjhile the burden rests upon the moving party to make [the first] two requisite showings, the district court ‘should take into account, when they are relevant, (3) the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the grant or denial of the injunction, and (4) the public interest.’ ” Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir.1994) (citation omitted); see also Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.…

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir. 2003)). “[W]hile the burden rests upon the moving party to make [the first] two requisite showings, the district court” should also look to factors three and four when relevant.

"Under the clearly erroneous standard, a finding of fact may be reversed on appeal only if it is completely devoid of a credible evidentiary basis or bears no rational relationship to the supporting data." Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted).

Shire U.S. Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003).

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003) (citations omitted).

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003)); cf. Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 231 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2000) (applying an essentially identical test).

Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.2003).