Legal Opinion
Stuart Hall Company, Inc., a Missouri Corporation v. Ampad Corp., a Massachusetts Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided April 7, 1995No. 94-2618PublishedCited by 76 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAGILL, Circuit Judge.
Stuart Hall appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction against Ampad in this trade dress action brought under Lanham Act § 43(a). Stuart Hall argues that the district court applied an unrecognized legal standard to determine whether its trade dress is inherently distinctive, and that the court failed to consider or to grant appropriate weight to the evidence presented on the other elements of the trade dress infringement standard. We reverse and remand.
I. BACKGROUND
Stuart Hall Company produces and markets a line of specialized…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- John H. Harland Company, Cross-Appellant v. Clarke Checks, Inc., Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Thompson Medical Company, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Centaur Communications, Limited v. A/s/m Communications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Knitwaves, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Lollytogs Ltd. (Inc.) D/B/A French Toast, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
- Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini StorageCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
- I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.