- 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
Pages
- Home
- Help Support This Site: Please Donate Your Old Notes and Outlines!
- How To Get A's In Law School and Have a TOP Class Rank!
- Recommended Law School Supplements
- Thinking of Dropping Out of Law School?
- My Story - Law School, Top Grades, International Living, and Post-Law Teaching
- Follow Us: INSTAGRAM
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., INC case brief summary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment