Jcw Investments, Inc., D/B/A Tekky Toys v. Novelty, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant’s entire doll was only “minimally distinguishable” from plaintiffs doll, which was a combination of numerous unprotectable details such as its face and chair
• concluding that because “the Lanham Act has not been interpreted as a statute with broad preemptive reach,” state law remedies (including punitive damages) remain available for non-federal trademark infringement claims
• stating that “the Lanham Act has not been interpreted as a statute with broad preemptive reach”
• noting that “the Lanham Act has not been interpreted as a statute with broad preemptive reach”
• stating that “the Lanham Act has not been interpreted as a statute with broad preemptive reach”
• stating that “[i]n the area of trademark law, preemption is the exception rather than the rule,” the court held that the Lanham Act did not preempt state-law punitive damages available under the Illinois unfair competition statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).