C & C Management Holding, Corp v. Betances Lacourt, Vibeke Lorraine

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Board considered evidence of potential alternative designs even though functionality could be found based on other considerations
• stating that there is no need to consider availability of alternative designs “if functionality is found based on other considerations”
• stating that, “[a]bsent identity between the design patent and the proposed mark, the presumption [that the design patent shows the design in the mark is nonfunctional] loses force”
• stating that, “[a]bsent identity between the design patent and the proposed mark, the presumption [that the design patent shows the design in the mark is nonfunctional] loses force”
• finding it probative of functionality that others in the closure cap industry generally use ribs on the caps and “similar functional openings”
• noting, without objection, that the Board considered elements of the proposed design that were reflected in the mark drawing but not recited in the mark description

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).