Mastercrafters Clock v. Vacheron Inc., 221 F.2d 464 (1955) p.462

SUBJECT

likelihood of confusion

FACTS

Two clock makers. Defendant's clock looked like plaintiff's clock. Price for defendant's clock was much cheaper. D made it clear the source of the clock was not the P.

ISSUE

Does the look of the clock indicate source and is it nonfunctionable? YES, and protectible. Whether or defendant's clock is likely to confuse consumers.

RATIONAL

D still found liable even though they made it clear the source of the clock. Does not matter because people looking at the clock would be confused as to the original source. The likelihood of confusion exists in the member of the public that would observe the clock (not even the person buying the clock).
POST SALE CONFUSION

The court gave a lot of weight to defendant's intent and found they intended to confuse.

Created on: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 at 17:53:01 (PST)