The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P makes plush toys in the shape of animals, filled with bean-like materials to give the toys a soft and floppy feel. D's plush toys are, of course, the famous 'Beanie Babies.' P began selling a camel that it named 'Niles.' The price tag fastened to Niles's ear contains information both about camels and about Egypt, and the Egyptian flag is stamped on the animal. P sold only a few thousand of its camels in 1999. The following year, D began selling a camel also named 'Niles.' It sold almost two million in one year. P sold only a few thousand of its camels in 1999. The following year, D began selling a camel also named 'Niles.' It sold almost two million in one year--precipitating this suit. P sued D and the court ruled that 'Niles,' being a personal name, is a descriptive mark that the law does not protect unless and until it has acquired secondary meaning, that is until there is proof that consumers associate the name with the P's brand. The court gave summary judgment to D as P did not prove that consumers associate the name 'Niles' with its camel. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.