Wolf Appliance, Inc. v. Viking Range Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that high-end ranges “are relatively expensive” and that “[a] consumer who is investing $2,000-$12,000 on a range is unlikely to buy a range without being sure of the brand”
• reasonable jury could find that defendant copied plaintiffs trade dress' “because it wanted customers to' believe that plaintiff and' defendant are now affiliated”
• consumer influenced to consider purchasing stove because it featured competitor’s red knobs
• “For example, if a customer saw the Toyota trademark on a Honda vehicle, the customer may assume that Toyota and Honda are now affiliated. This type of confusion could damage a plaintiff if consumers are dissatisfied with the defendant’s product.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).