Mini Melts, Inc. v. Dippin' Dots, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories
456 U.S. 844 (1982) Cited 1,295 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 604 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 576 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc.
812 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1987) Cited 291 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court could enjoin trademark infringement defendant from using any image of a polar bear on a five ounce chocolate-covered ice cream bar, despite the fact that plaintiff "has no exclusive right to use a polar bear image"
Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distribution, LLC
369 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2004) Cited 154 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding color functional under traditional test and stating "[w]here the design is functional under the traditional test, there is no need to proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity for the feature"
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
Publications International, Ltd. v. Landoll
164 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 57 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding various elements of a cookbook's design functional but recognizing that their appearance in concert could garner legal protection "unless it was the only way the product could look, consistent with its performing each of the product's functions optimally"
Mothers Restaurant, v. Mama's Pizza, Inc.
723 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 82 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding collateral estoppel may foreclose relitigation of issues that were "actually litigated" and determined in a prior law suit.
Epic Metals Corp. v. Souliere
99 F.3d 1034 (11th Cir. 1996) Cited 38 times
Holding that a steel deck's corrugated dovetail profile impacts the sectional modulus of the deck, determining how much stress the product will tolerate and ultimately affecting the product's strength
Warner Lambert Co. v. McCrory's Corp.
718 F. Supp. 389 (D.N.J. 1989) Cited 25 times
Holding that for the purposes of a preliminary injunction a "waisted bottle" design for a well-known mouthwash was functional, and not distinctive
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,876 times 329 Legal Analyses
Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,761 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."
Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,610 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"

Mini Melts, Inc. v. Dippin' Dots, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

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 district court could enjoin trademark infringement defendant from using any image of a polar bear on a five ounce chocolate-covered ice cream bar, despite the fact that plaintiff "has no exclusive right to use a polar bear image"

Holding color functional under traditional test and stating "[w]here the design is functional under the traditional test, there is no need to proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity for the feature"

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

Holding various elements of a cookbook's design functional but recognizing that their appearance in concert could garner legal protection "unless it was the only way the product could look, consistent with its performing each of the product's functions optimally"

Holding collateral estoppel may foreclose relitigation of issues that were "actually litigated" and determined in a prior law suit.

Holding that a steel deck's corrugated dovetail profile impacts the sectional modulus of the deck, determining how much stress the product will tolerate and ultimately affecting the product's strength

Holding that for the purposes of a preliminary injunction a "waisted bottle" design for a well-known mouthwash was functional, and not distinctive

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

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"