Regal Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Kingsbridge Intern., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling in defendant’s favor even though there was evidence of intentional copying
• noting that “Regal’s use of box designs are extremely similar to those of the other manufacturers, Regal is not using a design or color combination that has become a singular custom in the industry”
• determining whether alleged trade dress had a consistent overall look by evaluating only the six novelty items at issue despite the fact that the plaintiff distributed almost 200 different novelty items
• determining whether alleged trade dress had a consistent overall look by evaluating only the six novelty items at issue despite the fact that the plaintiff distributed almost 200 different novelty items
• rejecting an inherent distinctiveness argument because Plaintiff’s packaging was “extremely common”
• \[C]ourts consider . . . broader product line claims with an `acute' concern for protecting competition given that any remedy could potentially cover a wide range of products.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).