Dayton Progress Corporation v. Lane Punch Corporation, and Jerry W. Campbell James William Porter

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the “mere inclusion of [corporate] logo on the product is not sufficient to establish the defense of fair use”
• where, as here, “the second comer intentionally copies the mark of a senior user, there is a presumption of secondary meaning”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).