John Maye Company, Inc. v. Nordson Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• considering whether alleged dealer paid for advertising using grantor’s logo in determining whether use of the logo was de minimus
• “The WFDL is intended to protect small businesses (dealers) that deal in the goods or services of a larger company (grantor
• the \most important factor ... is the dealer's ability to transfer the product itself (or title to the product) or commit the grantor to a transaction at the moment of the agreement to sell.\
• “[A] minor investment in a grantor’s trademark is unlikely to place the grantor in such a superior bargaining position that it could extract concessions from an 10 No. 18-3484 unwilling dealer, and so the dealer does not need the protec- tion of the WFDL.”
• “[A] minor investment in a grantor’s trademark is unlikely to place the grantor in such a superior bargaining position that it could extract concessions from an 10 No. 18-3484 unwilling dealer, and so the dealer does not need the protec- tion of the WFDL.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).