Sports Traveler, Inc. v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• “[Ajny media reference after June 26, 1996 is irrelevant because that is the date upon which Sports Traveler’s trade dress must have attained secondary meaning.”
• “[C]onsumer surveys have become the usual way of demonstrating secondary meaning . . . .”
• “[T]he test[] for . . . secondary meaning appl[ies] to both federal statutory and common law trade dress infringement claims.”
• “The analysis for trade dress infringement is the same under both the Lanham Act and New York State common law.”
• Sports Traveler had not met its burden of creating issue of fact as to Conde Nast's bad faith where it showed only that (1) Conde Nast’s designer had previously been involved with Sports Traveler and was privy to its trade dress prototypes; (2
• “[C]onsumer surveys have become the usual way of demonstrating secondary meaning.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).