Topic: intent of a defendant in adopting his trade dress is a crit… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #23851

5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 17 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from First Brands Corporation v. Fred Meyer, Inc. And Basf Wyandotte Corporation.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 First Brands Corporation v. Fred Meyer, Inc. And Basf Wyandotte Corporation Anchor
ca1 · 1987
green “intent of a defendant in adopting his trade dress is a critical factor, since if the trade dress were adopted with the intent of depriving benefit from the reputation of the plaintiff, that fact alone may be sufficient to justify the inference that there is confusing similarity.” 4
2 Mobil Oil Corporation v. Pegasus Petroleum Corporation
ca2 · 1987
green “confusion, or the likelihood of confusion, not competition, is the real test of trademark infringement.” 4
3 Bauer Lamp Co., Inc. v. Martin Shaffer, Howard Levi, Shaffer & Levi, Inc., a Florida Corp.
ca11 · 1991
green “intent to copy in itself creates a rebuttable presumption of likelihood of confusion.” 4
4 Ocean Garden, Inc., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee v. Marktrade Company, Inc. Alberto J. Soler, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellants
ca9 · 1991
green “entry of infringing goods into a foreign trade zone is a sufficient act in commerce to trigger subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts under the lanham act.” 3
5 Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. P. K. Sorren Export Co.
flsd · 1982
green “the mark owners royalties are normally used as the measure of damages, but the plaintiff must prove both lost sales and that the loss was caused by defendants' actions.” 2

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check