Georgia Lee Miller Roulo, Cross-Appellant v. Russ Berrie & Co., Inc., Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trademark owner’s presence at a trade show was sufficient evidence of intent to resume use in the foreseeable future
• holding that the intent could be presumed after a two-year period of nonuse, the statutory period of time that triggered a presumption of abandonment until the GATT amendment that went into effect on January 1,1996
• explaining that actual confusion is irrelevant to an award based on the defendant’s profits
• explaining that “[o]ther than general equitable considerations, there is no express requirement . . . that the infringer willfully infringe . . . to justify an award of profits”
• finding likelihood of confusion between defendant's product and plaintiff's product, although the latter had not been on market for more than two years
• stating that the minor differences incorporated by the defendant to prevent a mirror image copy of the plaintiffs work are insignificant in light of the nearly identical composition and appearance of both products

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).