The Oyez Project: Economic Activity Issues - Trademark Arguments

Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. - Oral Argument

Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500

Doubleday published the WWII book, Crusade in Europe, registered the work's copyright, and granted exclusive television rights to Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. In 1975, Doubleday renewed the book's copyright, but Fox never renewed the copyright on the television series, leaving the series in the public domain. In 1988, Fox reacquired the television rights. In 1995, Dastar Corporation released a video set, World War II Campaigns in Europe, which it made from tapes of the original version of the Crusade television series. Fox filed suit, alleged that Dastar's sale of Campaigns without proper credit to the Crusade television series constituted "reverse passing off" in violation of the Lanham Act. The District Court granted Fox summary judgment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that, because Dastar copied substantially the Crusade series, labeled it with a different name, and marketed it without attribution to Fox, Dastar had committed a "bodily appropriation" of Fox's series, which was sufficient to establish reverse passing off.

K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 06 Oct 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. - Oral Reargument

Tue, 26 Apr 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. - Oral Reargument (No. 86-495)

Tue, 26 Apr 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression, Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:00:00 -0500

Cosmetics company Lasting Impression trademarked the term "micro colors." Lasting Impression sued K.P. Permanent Make-Up in federal district court for using the term. K.P. used the "classic fair use defense" and argued it used the term only to describe K.P. products. The district court sided with K.P. Lasting appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike other federal appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit required companies that used the fair use defense to prove there was no likelihood of confusion in use of the term. The Ninth Circuit ruled there was likelihood of confusion and reversed the district court's ruling.

Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:00:00 -0500

V Secret Catalogue, Inc., the affiliated corporations that own the Victoria's Secret trademarks, filed suit, alleging that the name Victor's Little Secret contributed to "the dilution of famous marks" under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA). The law defines "dilution" as "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services." The District Court granted V Secret summary judgment on the FTDA claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that V Secret's mark was distinctive and that the evidence established dilution even though no actual harm had been proved.

Park'n Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park And Fly, Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 09 Oct 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 21 Apr 1992 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Bros. Inc. - Oral Argument

Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:00:00 -0500

Samara Brothers, Inc. designs and manufactures a line of children's clothing. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., contracted with a supplier, Judy-Philippine, Inc. (JPI), to manufacture outfits based on photographs of Samara garments and to be offered under Wal-Mart's house label, "Small Steps." When JPI manufactured the clothes, it copied sixteen of Samara's garments with some small modifications to produce the line of clothes required under its contract with Wal-Mart. After discovering that Wal-Mart and other retailers were selling the so-called knockoffs, Samara brought an action for infringement of unregistered trade dress under section 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946. The jury found for Samara and awarded the company more than $1 million in damages. Wal-Mart then renewed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Samara's clothing designs could be legally protected as distinctive trade dress for purposes of section 43(a). The District Court denied the motion and awarded Samara relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion and concluded that "copyrights depicting familiar objects, such as the hearts, daisies, and strawberries in Samara's copyrights are entitled to very narrow protection. It is only the virtually identical copying...which will result in a successful claim of infringement of familiar objects."