Remember when Dippin' Dots proclaimed it would be the "ice cream of the future"? That is a future I would not want to live in. "District court could take judicial notice, and Court of Appeals would likewise take judicial notice, of fact that color indicated flavor of ice cream, for purpose of manufacturer's claim under Lanham Act that competitor infringed trade dress of manufacturer's flash-frozen novelty ice cream; fact was adjudicative in nature and generally known among consumers." Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distribution, LLC, 369 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2004)

Remember when Dippin' Dots proclaimed it would be the "ice cream of the future"? That is a future I would not want to live in. "District court could take judicial notice, and Court of Appeals would likewise take judicial notice, of fact that color indicated flavor of ice cream, for purpose of manufacturer's claim under Lanham Act that competitor infringed trade dress of manufacturer's flash-frozen novelty ice cream; fact was adjudicative in nature and generally known among consumers." Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distribution, LLC, 369 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2004)

by Christian T. Misner



May 08, 2014 at 01:15PM

from Facebook

via IFTTTfrom Facebook

via IFTTT