Karsten Manufacturing Corporation

9 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.
529 U.S. 205 (2000) Cited 804 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive
Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,298 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe
Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.
532 U.S. 23 (2001) Cited 606 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
514 U.S. 159 (1995) Cited 580 times 52 Legal Analyses
Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.
671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 110 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection
Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.
278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 60 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"
In re Bose Corp.
772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Cited 31 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system
Best Lock Corporation v. Schlage Lock
413 F.2d 1195 (C.C.P.A. 1969) Cited 24 times
Entertaining an opposition on the ground that the subject matter of applicant's registration was functional: "the [Lanham] Act is premised on the idea that only non-functional configurations may be registrable thereunder."
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,616 times 274 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"

Karsten Manufacturing Corporation

9 Cited authorities

Holding that fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive

Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff

Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"

Holding that configuration of "Glass Plus" spray-bottle warranted trademark protection

Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"

Holding pentagonal shape of loudspeaker functional where applicant's promotional materials lauded shape as functional part of sound system

Entertaining an opposition on the ground that the subject matter of applicant's registration was functional: "the [Lanham] Act is premised on the idea that only non-functional configurations may be registrable thereunder."

Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"