Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp

111 F.3d 993 (2nd Cir. 1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Fun-Damental (P) sued Gemmy (D), and Kay Bee Toy (D1) for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act in that D copied P's 'Toilet Bank' for use as D's 'Currency Can.' In 1992 P developed the Toilet Bank complete with flushing sound when its handle was depressed. P began marketing its product in 1994. In May 1995, D1 expressed an interest in carrying the Bank but decided not too as it was deemed to be too expensive. P got word of a similar product at D1 in the name of the Currency Can that was developed by D when it got word of P's product. D admitted that the Currency Can was designed with dimensions virtually identical to those of the Toilet Bank. P offered direct testimony of its national sales manager to demonstrate actual confusion; that customers were complaining because they thought that P was selling its Toilet Bank at a lower price to other retailers. Ds argued that this evidence was hearsay. The court allowed the evidence.