Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp. case brief
summary
111 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1997)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff brought a suit against defendants for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act,15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a). Plaintiff alleged that defendants copied the packaging of plaintiff's product for use with defendants' similar product. Pending resolution of plaintiff's claims, the district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from manufacturing, distributing, or selling its product in its current packaging or in any packaging similar to plaintiff's.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court that granted plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction because the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim.
Suggested law school study materials




Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
111 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1997)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants appealed the judgment of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granting plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction in an
action brought against defendants for trade dress infringement under
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a).CASE FACTS
Plaintiff brought a suit against defendants for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act,15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a). Plaintiff alleged that defendants copied the packaging of plaintiff's product for use with defendants' similar product. Pending resolution of plaintiff's claims, the district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from manufacturing, distributing, or selling its product in its current packaging or in any packaging similar to plaintiff's.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court held that the district court properly granted the preliminary injunction because it did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim against defendants.
- The court also held that the injunction's reach over extraterritorial conduct of the parties was properly within the power of the district court under the Lanham Act.
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court that granted plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction because the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
No comments:
Post a Comment