§Why CasetextPricing

Miyano Machinery USA Inc. v. MiyanoHitec Machinery, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM

46 Cited authorities

  1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.

    505 U.S. 763 (1992)   Cited 1,961 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a claim for trade dress infringement, secondary meaning, non-functionality and likelihood of confusion must all be shown

  2. TY, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc.

    237 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 571 times
    Holding that similarities between the defendant's "Beanie Racers" and Ty, Inc.'s "Beanie Babies" could cause the public to believe that the defendant's products were affiliated or associated with Ty, Inc.

  3. Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson Co.

    971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 627 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's description of its product as "rice-based," which in context was a "term of art used to describe oral electrolyte solutions made from rice grain powder," was literally false because the product contained "rice syrup solids" but not "powdered whole rice"

  4. E. J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co.

    955 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 426 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although the mark logos were dissimilar, “it does not appear that the district court committed clear error in relying on the dominant element GALLO for its finding of similarity in sight, sound and meaning”

  5. Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co.

    799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986)   Cited 458 times
    Holding that the Lanham Act protects against post-sale confusion

  6. CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Engineering, Inc.

    267 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 280 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the individuals plaintiff advanced as actually confused were not relevant "consumers" under the Lanham Act because plaintiff did not show that they purchased or attempted to purchase the goods in question

  7. Platinum Home Mortgage Corp. v. Platinum F. G

    149 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 277 times
    Holding failure to submit survey "not fatal"

  8. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc.

    233 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 253 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although there was no evidence of actual confusion, "the other factors — especially the similarity of the marks, the strength of the [plaintiffs] mark, and [the defendant's] intent to confuse — strongly support[ed] the district court's ultimate conclusion" to grant a preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act

  9. Sands, Taylor Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co.

    978 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 284 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark to market a similar isotonic beverage was likely to cause confusion

  10. Promatek Industries, Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp.

    300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002)   Cited 207 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's reference to the plaintiff's trademark in the metatags of the defendant's web page was a violation of trademark law

  11. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,341 times   321 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"

  12. Section 1114 - Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers

    15 U.S.C. § 1114   Cited 7,940 times   90 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable "Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant — use in commerce any reproduction . . . of a registered mark . . . in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion."

  13. Section 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter

    15 U.S.C. § 1127   Cited 2,949 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Granting standing under § 1114 to the legal representative of the registrant of a trademark

  14. Section 1115 - Registration on principal register as evidence of exclusive right to use mark; defenses

    15 U.S.C. § 1115   Cited 1,911 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing that registration of a mark "shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark" but "shall not preclude another person from proving any legal or equitable defense or defect"

  15. Section 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

    15 U.S.C. § 1052   Cited 1,582 times   266 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"