Skip to main content
· 7/7/1997

Wolfard Glassblowing Company v. Willy Vanbragt Mary Vanbragt, Individually, and Doing Business as Zodiac Expressions

Citations

  • 118 F.3d 1320
  • 43 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1378
  • 97 Daily Journal DAR 8668
  • 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5339
  • 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 16487

How courts have described this case

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

  • referring to “exact copies” and “colorable imitations” of 19 the plaintiff’s trade dress
  • injunction expressly prohibited the sale of “colorable imitations,” which the court found to include the change in shape of the accused lamp’s base
  • “The question . . . is whether [the defendant’s] new lamp is a ‘colorable imitation’ of [the plaintiff’s protected] lamp.”
  • district court need not conduct a new infringemént analysis where an injunction exists, and may afford less leniency to a party that has already infringed the mark

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Canby, Tashima, Silver

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.