PRIME MOVERS, INC., ET AL.

v.

KENTUCKY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (44 total)

• Pembaur v. City OF Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986)
  …6 F. 2d, at 342. See, e. g., McKinley v. City of Eloy, 705 F. 2d 1110, 1116-1117 (CA9 1983); Berdin v. Duggan, 701 F. 2d 909, 913-914 (CA11), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 893 (1983); Van Ooteghem v. Gray, 628 F. 2d 488, 494-495 (CA5 1980), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 909 (1982); Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F. 2d 438, 448 (CA2 1980). See also Sanders v. St. Louis County, 724 F. 2d 665, 668 (CA8 1983) (per curiam) (“It may be that one act of a senior county official is enough to establish the lia…
• Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (U.S. 1992)
  …case. Most of the cases in which the Second Circuit has said that secondary meaning is required did not involve findings of inherent distinctiveness. For example, in Vibrant Sales, Inc. v. New Body Boutique, Inc., 652 F. 2d 299 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 909 (1982), the product at issue — a velcro belt — was functional and lacked “any distinctive, unique or non-fimctional mark or feature.” 652 F. 2d, at 305. Similarly, in Stormy Clime Ltd. v. ProGroup, Inc., 809 F. 2d 971, 977 (1987), the court describe…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966 (11th Cir. 1983)
  …ty as part of the prima facie case or whether the defendant has the burden of proving functionality as a defense. Compare, e.g., Vibrant Sales, Inc. v. New Body Boutique, Inc., 652 F. 2d 299 (2d Cir.1981) (placing burden on plaintiff), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102 S.Ct. 1257, 71 L.Ed.2d 448 (1982), with Ives Laboratories, Inc. v. Darby Drug Co., 601 F. 2d 631, 643 (2d Cir.1979) (stating, in affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction, that “[t]he case for functionality ... depends on the evidence pr…