Opinion ID: 361059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: casper's liability

Text: 13 The district court concluded that although Donsco holds no trademark for its Certificate of Authenticity, that certificate constitutes trade dress and is protected against imitation under Pennsylvania's law of unfair competition. To make out a claim for unfair competition, the two central elements are secondary meaning (that the certificate of authenticity is associated in the public's mind with The Book of Knowledge Collection) and likelihood of confusion. The district court found that Donsco's long, intensive, exclusive, and highly-publicized use and promotion of its Book of Knowledge-endorsed certificate of authenticity between the years 1957 and 1972 created a secondary meaning for that certificate . . . . John Wright, supra, 419 F.Supp. at 318. The district court also found a likelihood of confusion relying on the degree of similarity between the two certificates, Casper's intent in using the certificate, the comparative use and marketing of the two certificates and the degree of care likely to be used by purchasers. John Wright, supra, 419 F.Supp. at 319-20, citing to Section 729 of the Restatement of Torts as cited in Goebel Brewing Co. v. Esslinger's Inc., 373 Pa. 334, 95 A.2d 523 (1953). The court also considered evidence of actual confusion including unsolicited letters to Donsco from shop owners and customers asking if (or assuming that) Casper banks, advertised as 'certified, authentic' replicas with a certificate of authenticity (but with no manufacturer's name given), are (Donsco's) banks. John Wright, supra, 419 F.Supp. at 321. There was also evidence that copywriters writing advertisements for Casper banks mistakenly included copy relating to The Book of Knowledge in its copy. Id. at 322. 14 The district court further found that section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), was violated by Casper's use of its certificate because such use amounts to a false designation of origin in that customers are deceived into believing that Casper's banks are made by Donsco. The court also found that Casper violated 43(a) in that it committed several acts of false advertising. 15 There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the factual findings made by the district court and we conclude, therefore, that those findings are not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, the district court made no errors of law in concluding on the basis of these factual findings that Casper Corporation had committed acts of unfair competition and false advertising. Therefore we hold that the district court did not err in finding Casper Corporation liable for acts of unfair competition and false advertising.