2nd Circuit (27 cases) - Connecticut, New York, Vermont
**NOTE - the 2nd Circuit gets a lot more trademark cases than the other circuits because of New York City.
- Lois Sportswear, USA, Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co
799 F. 2d 867 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1986
The question presented by this appeal is whether summary judgment for the trademark owner is appropriate on claims of trademark infringement
and unfair competition when the trademark owner has shown that a rival jeans manufacturer is using the trademark owner's registered back pocket
stitching pattern trademark on its competing jeans, and the undisputed evidence shows that the trademark is intimately associated with the trademark
owner's products in the minds of jeans consumers. Affirmed. Competing products.
- United States v. Infurnari
647 F. Supp. 57 - Dist. Court, WD New York 1986
At the conclusion of jury selection in this case, both parties requested a pretrial ruling from the court as to the elements of the Trademark Counterfeiting Act.
- Radio Today, Inc. v. Westwood One, Inc.
684 F. Supp. 68 - Dist. Court, SD New York 1988
Plaintiff Radio Today, Inc. develops, produces and sells programs nationwide to radio networks and stations
Defendant Westwood One purchases and develops radio programs and also sells such programs nationwide to radio stations. In mid-1987,
Westwood One acquired NBC Radio. Competing products.
- PaF Srl v. Lisa Lighting Co., Ltd
712 F. Supp. 394 - Dist. Court, SD New York 1989
This is an action for trade dress infringement and unfair competition. PAF S.r.l., an Italian company, and Koch + Lowy, a New York corporation,
plaintiffs herein, are respectively the manufacturer and exclusive United States distributor of the "DOVE" lamp. Defendant Hunter-Melnor, Inc.,
Kenroy International Division, a Delaware corporation, imports the "SWAN" lamp from Taiwan and distributes it throughout the United States at
wholesale in competition with plaintiffs' Dove lamp. Plaintiffs allege that the Swan is a "knockoff" of the Dove lamp.
The Swan is virtually identical in appearance to the Dove, but is sold in only two colors: white and black. Competing products.
- Reebok Intern. Ltd. v. K-Mart Corp
849 F. Supp. 252 - Dist. Court, SD New York 1994
Plaintiffs Reebok International Ltd. and Reebok International Limited bring this action against defendants K-Mart Corporation,
Melville Corporation and Leif J. Ostberg Corporation, alleging that K-Mart stores have sold a sneaker that infringes on Reebok trademarks and trade dress.
- Imagineering, Inc. v. Van Klassens, Inc
851 F. Supp. 532 - Dist. Court, SD New York 1994
The background of this trade dress infringement case involving rival manufacturers of garden furniture, Imagineering, Inc. ("Imagineering") and
Van Klassens, Inc. ("Van Klassens"). The jury returned a verdict favorable to plaintiff on its federal law claims and state law claim.
- KOMPAN AS v. Park Structures, Inc
890 F. Supp. 1167 - Dist. Court, ND New York 1995
Kompan A.S., Kompan, Inc. and Kompan/Big Toys Northeast (collectively Kompan), manufacture and distribute playground equipment.
Defendants Park Structures, Inc., Kay and Alan Bayman and Baughman Bros., Inc. (collectively "PSI") compete with Kompan as manufacturers
and/or distributors of playground equipment. PSI has created a product line, the "Karavan" line, that closely resembles Kompan's pre-existing
early childhood line. Kompan alleges that PSI's hen bouncer, bunny bouncer, and goose bouncer - along with other products in the Karavan
line - have bounced over the elusive border that separates imitation as flattery from imitation as unfair competition. Kompan seeks a variety
of injunctive relief. Because Kompan has shown a likelihood of success on its trade dress infringement claim, Kompan is entitled to much,
but not all, of the injunctive relief it seeks. Competing products.
- Arrow Fastener Co., Inc. v. Stanley Works
59 F. 3d 384 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1995
In this case we consider the breadth of protection afforded a registered trademark that also serves as a model number for a hand-operated staple gun.
Specifically, we consider whether the trademark is infringed by another company's use of the letter and number that constitute the mark - in combination
with other letters and numbers to form a longer model number - on a higherpriced and functionally different stapler. Competing products.
- Krueger Intern., Inc. v. Nightingale Inc
915 F. Supp. 595 - Dist. Court, SD New York 1996
Plaintiff, a manufacturer of metal-frame stacking chairs, alleges that defendant, a competitor, has "slavishly copied" its chair design and thereby infringed its trade dress.
Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion was denied. Competing products.
- Clinique Laboratories, Inc. v. Dep Corp
945 F. Supp. 547 - Dist. Court, SD New York 1996
Clinique seeks to enjoin Dep's use of an advertisement that allegedly infringes three of Clinique's copyrights. Competing products.
- Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc
191 F. 3d 208 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1999
The district court found that Nabisco's use of an orange, bite-sized, cheddar cheese-flavored, goldfish-shaped cracker (as part of a tie-in promotion
of a Nickelodeon Television Network television production) would dilute the distinctive quality of Pepperidge Farm's mark consisting of an orange,
bite-sized, cheddar cheese-flavored, goldfish-shaped cracker, in violation of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA"), section 43(c) of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and New York's antidilution statute, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-l. The court entered an order requiring
Nabisco to recall and cease selling its goldfish cracker. We affirm. Competing products.
- Winner Intern. LLC v. Omori Enterprises, Inc
60 F. Supp. 2d 62 - Dist. Court, ED New York 1999
Plaintiff is the maker of auto anti-theft devices that attach to a motor vehicle's steering wheel so as to inhibit it from moving. Plaintiff markets the
devices under such trademarks as "The Club." Defendants market "Global America Steering Wheel Lock" ("Global America"), which closely
resembles The Club and performs the same function. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. Competing products.
- Hermes Intern. v. Lederer de Paris Fifth Ave
219 F. 3d 104 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2000
Hermes argues on appeal that the district court erroneously held that the doctrine of laches barred Hermes' claim for injunctive relief
against both defendants and for monetary relief against defendant Artbag with respect to certain allegedly infringing products.
Appellees cross-appeal claiming that the district court erred in determining that Hermes had not abandoned its right to enforce the trademarks
and trade dress at issue and in accordingly denying their motions for summary judgment. Counterfeits.
- GTFM, Inc. v. Solid Clothing, Inc
215 F. Supp. 2d 273 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2002
At this non-jury trial, the plaintiffs assert that their two digit number - "05" - functions as a trademark when placed on clothing,
principally athletic jerseys, sold to young men. Plaintiffs GTFM, Inc. and GTFM, LLC (collectively, "GTFM") are the owner and master licensee,
respectively, of the federally registered trademarks "FUBU," "FUBU 05" and "05" for International Class 25 (Clothing).
GTFM brought this action against defendant Solid Clothing Inc. ("Solid") for Solid's infringement of GTFM's "05" mark. Between 1999 and 2001,
Solid used "05" and then "PLAYERS 05" on sports apparel it designed to imitate GTFM's wildly popular garments.
The Court found that Solid had engaged in intentional trademark infringement. Competing products.
- 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. v. WhenU. Com
309 F. Supp. 2d 467 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2003
Before the Court is a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff 1-800 Contacts to enjoin Defendants from delivering to computer users competitive
"pop-up" Internet advertisements, in violation of federal and state copyright, trademark, and unfair competition laws. For the reasons set forth herein,
Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part. Post-sale confusion not applicable to this case.
- Car-Freshner Corp. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc
314 F. Supp. 2d 145 - Dist. Court, ND New York 2004
Plaintiffs Car-Freshner Corporation ("CFC") and Julius Samann LTD ("JSL") commenced the instant action against Defendants Big Lots Stores, Inc.
("BLS") and Midwestern Home Products, Inc. ("MHP") alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, common law trademark infringement,
unfair competition, and trademark counterfeiting arising out of Defendants' sale of a tree-shaped air freshener. Competing products.
- Cartier, Inc. v. Four Star Jewelry Creations, Inc
348 F. Supp. 2d 217 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2004
Defendants manufacture watches, bracelets, and watch attachments that they sell at wholesale prices. Tr. at 624-26. Their typical customers
are "mom and pop retail stores," most of which are jewelry stores and some of which are wholesalers. Tr. at 625-26, 735-36. The average
price of defendants' watches is $1,500 at wholesale. Cartier introduced evidence to the effect that third party sellers invoke Cartier's name in
selling their watches as a means of appealing to consumers. Competing products.
- Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc
340 F. Supp. 2d 415 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2004
This case involves the Court in the world of haute couture, where Louis Vuitton Malletier ("Louis Vuitton"), armed with state and federal
trademark law, 420*420 seeks to prevent Dooney & Bourke, Inc. ("Dooney & Bourke")-and all others- from trespassing in what it
perceives as its fashion "territory." Louis Vuitton created a new look and now seeks to preclude others from following its lead. If Louis Vuitton
succeeds, then it will have used the law to achieve an unwarranted anticompetitive result. In late July 2003, Dooney & Bourke introduced its "It-Bag"
collection, featuring the "DB" monogram (used in the Signature Line) in bright colors against a white background. Competing products.
- Malletier v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp
426 F. 3d 532 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2005
Plaintiff-Appellant Louis Vuitton Malletier is a famous French fashion design firm engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, importing,
advertising, selling and distributing designer luggage, handbags, travel leather accessories, high fashion apparel and accessories.
Defendant-Appellant Burlington Coat Factory ("BCF") is a discount clothing and accessory retail chain with 341 retail stores in 42 states.
BCF also conducts extensive commerce through its website, www.bcfdirect.com. Burlington has become famous for selling name-brand fashions
and accessories at discount prices. On October 10, 2003, Burlington began offering for sale a line of beaded handbags with colorful designs
reminiscent of the LVM Multicolore bags. Specifically, the BCF bags are " beaded on their entire exterior surface;  decorated with the
letters `NY' standing for `New York;' and  also decorated with an assortment of shapes, including circles, diamonds and flowers," on a
white or black background. Competing products.
New Colt Holding Corp. v. RJG Holdings of Florida, Inc
312 F. Supp. 2d 195 - Dist. Court, D. Connecticut 2004
Cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs New Colt Holding Corporation and Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc. brought this action
against RJG Holdings of Florida, Inc f/k/a American Western Arms and AWA International, Inc. t/a American Western Arms alleging violations of the Lanham Act.
- Montblanc-Simplo v. Aurora Due SrL
363 F. Supp. 2d 467 - Dist. Court, ED New York 2005
Both Montblanc and Aurora manufacture and sell high quality writing instruments. This action concerns two particular product lines - Montblanc's
Meisterstück and Aurora's Optima. Montblanc alleges that the Optima line infringes upon the Meisterstück line by copying the Meisterstück's
trademarked three-ring decoband. Montblanc contends that Aurora is appropriating the prestige, success and recognition that Montblanc
has worked so hard to establish in marketing its Meisterstück pen. Competing products.
- Cartier v. Symbolix, Inc
386 F. Supp. 2d 354 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2005
Cartier, a division of Richemont North America, Inc., and Cartier International, B.V. (collectively "Cartier") have moved for a preliminary injunction,
seeking to enjoin Symbolix, Inc. d/b/a Park Cities Jewelers ("Park Cities Jewelers"), its principal, Ahmed M. Saleh, and John Does 1-5
(collectively "defendants") from altering genuine stainless steel Cartier watches by mounting diamonds at various points on the bezels and
cases to simulate Cartier's more expensive white gold watches and thereafter selling the altered watches. For the reasons set forth below,
the Court grants Cartier's motion and enters a preliminary injunction against defendants. Reselling altered product.
- Cartier v. Aaron Faber
396 F. Supp. 2d 356 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2005
Plaintiffs Cartier, division of Richemont North America, Inc. and Cartier International B.V. (collectively, "Cartier") moved for a
preliminary injunction by Order to Show Cause. Cartier sought to enjoin defendants Aaron Faber, Inc., d/b/a Aaron Faber Gallery ("Faber"),
Edward Faber, J & P Timepieces ("J & P") and other unnamed defendants (collectively, "Defendants") from offering for sale, advertising or
distributing altered or modified Cartier watches, and, in particular, stainless steel Cartier watches which have been altered through the
addition of diamonds to the bezel or case. Reselling altered product.
- Cartier v. Symbolix, Inc
454 F. Supp. 2d 175 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2006
Court grants plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment  and enters a permanent injunction against defendants.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from modifying stainless steel Tank Francaise watches by mounting
diamonds on the bezels and cases, applying polish to the watch in order to simulate Cartier's more expensive white gold Tank Francaise watches,
and thereafter selling the modified watches. Counterfeits.
- Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke
454 F. 3d 108 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2006
Louis Vuitton Malletier (Vuitton or plaintiff) appeals from an August 27, 2004 judgment that denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction in
its trademark infringement suit against defendant Dooney & Bourke, Inc. (Dooney & Bourke or defendant). We now affirm, in part, and vacate and remand, in part.
- Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc
561 F. Supp. 2d 368 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2008
Louis Vuitton designs, manufactures, imports, and sells fine apparel, handbags, luggage, and fashion accessories.
Dooney & Bourke designs, manufacturers and sells quality handbags and fashion accessories.
In 2003, D & B introduced its "It Bag" line of handbags, small leather goods, and accessories. The "It Bag" line bears a design featuring the
"DB" monogram that appears in the "Signature Collection" but set in nine colors on a white background, and the "DB" monogram printed in
seven colors on a black background. Competing products.
- Yurman Studio, Inc. v. Castaneda
591 F. Supp. 2d 471 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2008
Yurman Studio, Inc., Yurman Design, Inc. (collectively, "Yurman"), Cartier, a division of Richemont North America, Inc., Cartier International, N.V.,
Cartier Creation Studio, S.A. (collectively, "Cartier"), Gucci America, Inc. ("Gucci"), and Bulgari S.p.A. ("Bulgari") (collectively, "plaintiffs") move
for partial summary judgment against Ejeweler LLC and Elena Castaneda (collectively "defendants") with respect to all issues of liability and
damages relating to certain of their claims for infringement of trademarks, copyrights and design patents involving nearly one hundred individual jewelry
pieces sold by defendants. Since 2004, defendants, through their website http://www.overstockjeweler.com ("Overstock website"), have been offering
for sale and selling "designer knock-off Jewelry" and "reproductions or replicas of popular designs. Counterfeits.