Maple Grove Farms, Vt. v. Euro-Can Products, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Merisant Company

    Civil No. 04-1090 (JAG) (D.P.R. Jul. 29, 2004)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that "courts generally place little weight on injuries that parties bring upon themselves through blatant misconduct"

    " Id. (citation omitted). 11. Merisant cites Maple Grove Farms of Utah, Inc. v. Euro-Can Prods., Inc., 974 F. Supp. 85, 93 (D. Mass. 1997), for the proposition that "elements . . . typical of the industry are not inherently distinctive." See Response to Order To Show Cause at 13.

  2. Yankee Candle Co., Inc. v. Bridgewater Candle Co.

    99 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D. Mass. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    Ruling for Bridgewater on every allegation of copyright infringement

    15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) has been held applicable to trade dress cases. See Maple Grove Farms, Vt. v. Euro-Can Products, Inc., 974 F. Supp. 85, 94 (Mass. 1997). Yankee cites some exceptions to this five-year presumption but these decisions are either anomalous or inapplicable.

  3. Sheila Lyons & Homecoming Farm, Inc. v. Am. Coll. of Veterinary Sports Med.

    997 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D. Mass. 2014)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Section 1052(f), however, only applies to trademark registration and allows the PTO to presume that a mark has secondary meaning with proof of five years' “substantially exclusive and continuous use.” See Maple Grove Farms of Vt., Inc. v. Euro–Can Prods., Inc., 974 F.Supp. 85, 94 (D.Mass.1997) (noting that 15 U.S.C. section 1052(f) allows the PTO to presume a mark has acquired secondary meaning “in [the] registration context”). In contrast, in other contexts, the First Circuit has listed various factors that are relevant to deciding whether a trademark has acquired secondary meaning; the length and manner of a mark's use is only one factor that a court ought consider.

  4. Nexxus Products Co. v. CVS New York, Inc.

    188 F.R.D. 11 (D. Mass. 1999)   Cited 6 times

    The likelihood of consumer confusion is the focus of Plaintiffs' claims under section 43(a) alleging unfair trade practices and false and misleading statements as well. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); Casa Helvetia, 982 F.2d at 640; Boston Athletic Ass'n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 29 (1st Cir.1989); Maple Grove Farms of Vermont, Inc. v. Euro-Can Products, Inc., 974 F.Supp. 85, 95 (D.Mass.1997); accordLone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Virginia, Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 930 (4th Cir.1995). To prevail on these claims, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Defendants have used their mark in a manner which is likely to cause confusion or to deceive consumers as to the source of the goods.

  5. Sign-A-Way, Inc. v. Mechtronics Corp.

    12 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D. Mass. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    To prevail in a cause of action under the Lanham Act, "plaintiff must show actual harm to its business." Camel Hair and Cashmere Inst. v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 799 F.2d 6, 12 (1st Cir. 1986); Maple Grove Farms of Vermont, Inc. v. Euro-Can Prod., Inc., 974 F. Supp. 85, 96 (D.Mass. 1997); See also Brown v. Armstrong, 957 F. Supp. 1293, 1301 (D.Mass.), aff'd, 129 F.3d 1252, 1997 WL 696059 (1st Cir. 1997); Pacamor Bearings, Inc. v. Minebea Co., 918 F. Supp. 491, 498 (D.N.H. 1996). In answer to Question II.7(a), the jury found that Mechtronics' use at a trade show in 1996 of the word "patented" in connection with its display of the Self Leveling Sign-Hanging Device did not cause Sign-A-Way any harm. The evidence before the jury reasonably supported this finding.