Brooks v. Center Township

How courts have described this case

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

• “As this court has often said, copyright, patent and trademark laws stem from different concepts and offer different kinds of protection, which are not mutually exclusive.”
• “[I]f [the configuration] be distinctive per se and capable of identifying [plaintiff’s] goods, its registration is proper.”
• design of key may serve as trademark for jewelry, although jewelry product itself includes three-dimensional portrayals of mark
• functionality is addressed to whether protection of a design would “hinder competition”
• If the product configuration “has a non-trademark function, the inquiry is not at an end; possession of a function and of a capability of indicating origin are not in every case mutually exclusive.”
• “A feature dictated solely by ‘functional’ (utilitarian) considerations may not be protected as a trademark . . . .” (quoting In re Deister Concentrator Co., 289 F.2d 496, 502 (CCPA 1961)). Therefore, the caselaw applying Section 2(e)(5

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).