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)
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
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...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...