Petersen Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Central Purchasing, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• vacating award of attorneys’ fees under section 285 to the extent that award reimbursed defendant for successful defense of unfair competition claim brought in conjunction with patent claim
• “The affidavits of Petersen are devoid of facts from which a conclusion of secondary meaning could be drawn. No evidence came from consumers that they rely on shape alone, rather than on the prominently displayed word mark VISE-GRIP, to identify the source of the product.”
• “The affidavits of Petersen are devoid of facts from which a conclusion of secondary meaning could be drawn. No evidence came from consumers that they rely on shape alone, rather than on the prominently displayed word mark VISE-GRIP, to identify the source of the product.”
• expert testimony “may” be “helpful”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).