Legal Opinion · Dissent
Aromatique, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Gold Seal, Inc., and Darrell Bufford, Appellants/cross-Appellees
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided September 20, 1994No. 93-3260, 93-3482Published
1DissentJohn R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent.
It is regrettable, indeed astounding, that the court today rewards Gold Seal’s studied and extensive imitation of Aromatique’s trade dress. Stronger words than imitation could, in truth, well be applied to Gold Seal’s conduct.
The court today rejects the district court’s factual findings that Aromatique’s trade dress is distinctive, and holds that as a matter of law it is not distinctive. Distinctiveness, as the court recognizes, is a factual question. Op. at p. 868 (citing Prufrock, Ltd. v. Lasater, 781 F.2d 129, 132-33 (8th Cir.1986)). The court’s discussion…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Wainwright v. SykesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- John H. Harland Company, Cross-Appellant v. Clarke Checks, Inc., Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Woodsmith Publishing Co. v. Meredith CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1990
- In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.