Versa Products Company, Inc. v. Bifold Company (Manufacturing) Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s findings of fact it must give “all due deference to the opportunity of the trial judge to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and to weigh the evidence”
• finding that labeling can eliminate a likelihood of confusion, “except where consumers ordinarily exercise virtually no care in selecting a particular type of product (as may be the case with inexpensive disposable or consumable items)” (emphasis addéd)
• finding that testimony by Vice Presi dent that “I have been advised by our sales manager in Europe that there was confusion at trade shows, that people had indicated that the valves resembled, were identical and they would lead to confusion” was hearsay
• applying clear and convincing standard to prove willfulness of trade dress infringement
• \[S]ubstantial similarity of appearance is necessarily a prerequisite to a finding of likelihood of confusion in product configuration cases.\
• “Inexpensive goods require consumers to exercise less care in their selection than expensive ones. The more important the use of the product, the more care that must be exercised in its selection.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).