- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., INC case brief summary
FACTS
Appellee manufactured Excedrin PM for more than 20 years, appellant introduced its Tylenol PM, which was also a combination analgesic/sleep aid. Appellee claims it will cause confusion under 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a) - HELD: The court affirmed finding that "PM," when affixed to an analgesic trade name, was descriptive of a combination analgesic/sleep aid and that the "PM" designator had not acquired secondary meaning.
- To show secondary meaning, a manufacturer must show that in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source rather than the product.
- Can be shown with:
- Amount and manner of advertising
- Consumer studies
- Direct consumer testimony
- Sales success
- Unsolicited media coverage
- Established place in the market
- Attempts to plagiarize
- Length of exclusivity of use
Case briefs for law students, lawyers, and others researching case law. I created many of these briefs in law school and periodically update them from time to time. My goal has been to build a one stop resource center for law students!
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., INC case brief summary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I Write For Law Firms, Let Me Write Content For Your Law Firm!
Are you looking for a legal content writer for your law firm? If so, I can help! My rates are competitive. I am knowledgeable on a wide are...
-
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
-
https://www.pexels.com/photo/coworkers-talking-outside-4427818/ Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...
-
Case Brief: Brisboy v. Fireboard Paper Products Corporation Court: Michigan Supreme Court Citation: 429 Mich. 540, 418 N.W.2d 650 (1988) D...
No comments:
Post a Comment