editing error in sentence carrying from 108-109?

Forums Mistakes in the casebook editing error in sentence carrying from 108-109?

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    Posts
    • #369
      Kevin CollinsKevin Collins
      Participant

      editing error in sentence carrying from 108-109?

    • #370
      Stacey DoganStacey Dogan
      Participant

      Yes – the full quote is:
      Most of the cases in which the Second Circuit has said that secondary meaning is required did not involve findings of inherent distinctiveness. For example, in Vibrant Sales, Inc. v. New Body Boutique, Inc., 652 F.2d 299 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102 S.Ct. 1257, 71 L.Ed.2d 448 (1982), the product at issue—a velcro belt—was functional and lacked “any distinctive, unique or non-functional mark or feature.” 652 F.2d, at 305. Similarly, in Stormy Clime Ltd. v. ProGroup, Inc., 809 F.2d 971, 977 (1987), the court described functionality as a continuum, and placed the contested rainjacket closer to the functional end than to the distinctive end. Although the court described the lightweight bag in LeSportsac, Inc. v. K mart Corp., 754 F.2d 71 (1985), as having a distinctive appearance and concluded that the District Court’s finding of nonfunctionality was not clearly erroneous, id., at 74, it did not explain why secondary meaning was also required in such a case.

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.