Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Products, Inc.

40 Citing cases

  1. Pocket Plus, LLC v. Pike Brands, LLC

    53 F.4th 425 (8th Cir. 2022)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Des Moines attorneys had not established reasonableness of hourly rates ranging from $400 to $480 for the Iowa market when they offered only a national survey as evidence; affirming district court's use of an hourly rate of $350 an hour, which district court found was โ€œhighest reasonable rate available in the recordโ€ based on a 2008 case awarding fees based on that hourly rate

    Running Buddy moved for summary judgment, arguing that the trade dress failed to satisfy two elements of an infringement claimโ€”nonfunctionality and distinctiveness. See Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prod., Inc. , 384 F.3d 503, 507 (8th Cir. 2004). A month later, and within only a few weeks of deposing Pocket Plus's owner, Running Buddy threatened to file for Rule 11 sanctions against Pocket Plus for its weak case.

  2. Nat'l Presto Indus. v. U.S. Merchants Fin. Grp.

    No. 23-1493 (8th Cir. Nov. 12, 2024)

    In Lanham Act litigation, "[t]rade dress is the total image of a product, the overall impression created, not the individual features." Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prods., Inc., 384 F.3d 503, 507 (8th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).

  3. Nat'l Presto Indus. v. U.S. Merchants Fin. Grp.

    18-cv-03321 (SRN/BRT) (D. Minn. Aug. 18, 2022)

    To succeed on a claim for unregistered trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimed trade dress is distinctive or has secondary meaning and is nonfunctional, and that its imitation would likely cause confusion for consumers as to the source of the product. Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prods., 384 F.3d 503, 507 (8th Cir. 2004).

  4. Honeywell International Inc. v. ICM Controls Corp.

    45 F. Supp. 3d 969 (D. Minn. 2014)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding on summary judgment that "Made in the U.S.A." is not unambiguous enough to support a literal falsity theory under the Lanham Act.

    To establish a claim for unregistered trade dress infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the claimed trade dress (1) is distinctive; (2) is nonfunctional; and (3) its imitation would likely cause confusion for consumers as to the source of the product. Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prods., 384 F.3d 503, 507 (8th Cir.2004). ICM contends that Honeywell cannot meet its burden of establishing the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress.

  5. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. VIP Products, LLC

    666 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Mo. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Granting preliminary injunction to plaintiff who showed survey evidence that consumers could not tell whether defendant's โ€œButtwiperโ€ dog toy was associated with Budweiser

    Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125(a)(1), creates a federal cause of action for trade dress infringement." Gateway, Inc. v. CompanionProds., Inc., 384 F.3d 503, 507 (8th Cir. 2004). "`Trade dress is the total image of a product, the overall impression created, not the individual features.

  6. Benedict v. Zimmer, Inc.

    232 F.R.D. 305 (N.D. Iowa 2005)   Cited 15 times
    Finding that a party failed to disclose an expert witness in a timely fashion and that the failure to disclose was not substantially justified or harmless and holding that the appropriate sanction was the exclusion of expert's testimony from consideration at the summary judgment stage and at trial

    " โ€˜ A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.โ€™ " Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prods., Inc., 384 F.3d 503, 507-08 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting Prufrock Ltd. v. Lasater, 781 F.2d 129, 133 (8th Cir.1986)).           IV.

  7. Nat'l Presto Indus. v. U.S. Merchants Fin. Grp.

    Case No. 18-cv-03321 (SRN/BRT) (D. Minn. Jun. 18, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    "To establish a claim for unregistered trade dress infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the claimed trade dress (1) is distinctive; (2) is nonfunctional; and (3) its imitation would likely cause confusion for consumers as to the source of the product." Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. ICM Controls Corp., 45 F. Supp. 3d 969, 990 (D. Minn. 2014) (citing Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prods., 384 F.3d 503, 507 (8th Cir. 2004)). Where the claimed trade dress has not been federally registered, the plaintiff "bears the burden of establishing that its marks are protectible under trademark law."

  8. P.S. Prods., Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

    140 F. Supp. 3d 795 (E.D. Ark. 2014)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Construing a design patent as for the ornamental design for a stun gun because the '294 patent's "sole claim is for '[t]he ornamental design for a stun gun, as shown and described'"

    "Trade dress is the total image of a product, the overall impression created, not the individual features." Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Products, Inc., 384 F.3d 503, 507 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting Aromatique, Inc., v. Gold Seal, Inc., 28 F.3d 863, 868 (8th Cir.1994) ). Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125(a)(1), creates a federal cause of action for trade dress infringement.

  9. Rotoworks International Ltd. v. Grassworks USA, LLC

    504 F. Supp. 2d 453 (W.D. Ark. 2007)

    (3) that its imitation would result in the likelihood of confusion in consumers' minds as to the source of the product.Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Products, Inc. , 384 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2004). The Court finds that a sufficient showing of secondary meaning has been made to justify injunctive relief on this theory.

  10. Frosty Treats v. Sony Computer Entertain

    426 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2005)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that the phrase "Frosty Treats" is "at best, descriptive" when used in conjunction with frozen desserts

    There is no evidence that the exclusive use of the Safety Clown graphic would deny Frosty Treats's competitors the ability to compete effectively or place competitors at any non-reputational disadvantage. See Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Prods., Inc., 384 F.3d 503, 508 (8th Cir. 2004). At the very least, whether the Safety Clown graphic is functional presents a factual issue not appropriate for resolution upon a motion for summary judgment.