Lesportsac, Inc. v. K Mart Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that secondary meaning exists \when the purchasing public associates a [product's design] with a single producer or source rather than just with the product itself\
• noting that “K mart’s ability to compete is not unduly hindered by the determination that LeSportsac’s particular configuration of design features is nonfunctional____”
• finding that sports bag was nonfunctional, and therefore entitled to trademark protection, “when viewed in its entirety”
• holding not erroneous district court’s finding that design of bag must be viewed in its entirety and not as separate features such as zipper pulls or carpet tape trim
• finding it irrelevant that individual design features may not be subject to protection because particular combination and arrangement of elements creates valid trade dress
• noting that “[f]or example, the cotton carpet tape and carrying straps could be placed differently, contrasted in color with the bag or be made thicker or thinner; zipper pulls could be solid or nonrectangular; the repeating elliptical logo could be changed or placed differently”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).