American Footwear Corporation v. General Footwear Company Limited, and Universal City Studios, Inc., Intervening-Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that same test applies to claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition
• explaining that “[t]he test, under both the Lanham Act and the common law, is the likelihood that the consuming public will be confused as to the source of the allegedly infringing product.”
• “the crucial question . . . always is whether the public is moved in any degree to buy an article because of its source”
• mere presence of extensive advertising does not resolve issue of secondary meaning
• “Unlike a copyright, mere reproduction of a trademark is not an infringement.”
• \There is no such thing as property in a trade-mark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed.\ (quoting United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97 (1918))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).