Ruling on burden of proving consumer confusion in trademark infringement [US SC]

KP Permanent Make-up Inc. v. Lasting Impression, United States Supreme Court per Justice Souter, December 8, 2004 [ruling that a company that had used the term "micro color" to describe its cosmetic product did not have the burden of showing that there was no likelihood of consumers confusing that product with a similarly-named product by another manufacturer alleging trademark infringement, but rather than the plaintiff manufacturer had the positive burden of showing that there was likely consumer confusion as a result of the practice]. Read the opinion here [PDF]. Reported in JURIST's Paper Chase here.

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.

Support JURIST

We rely on our readers to keep JURIST running


 Donate now!
 

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.