Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Traffix Device v. Marketing Display case brief summary

CASE: Traffix Device v. Marketing display
Dispute over functionality of temporary road signs Wind master and wind buster, same dual spring design visible at rear. MDI claims that the 2 spring design has a secondary meaning when consumers see’s the visible design. Consumer did not associate look of dual-spring design with MDI, secondary meaning not relevant. Court found that the 2 spring was the reason it worked so well and was functional, essential to use or purpose of the article. (More springs would cost more)
            C. Confusingly Similar Marks and Concurrent Use
                        1. Another may use the same or similar mark in another product market.
                                    a. If used in different industry, class, etc
2. To establish likelihood of confusion a party must show “something more” than similarity and even identical marks. (Have to look at similarities of goods and services and relation between the two)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.