![]() ![]() The district court held that consumers would be led to believe from the manner of Baby's Formula Service, Inc.'s use of the trademark that the source of the Enfamil formula was Mead-Johnson and was vouched for and guaranteed by them. A substantial part of the appellee's sales program success appeared to the district court to have resulted from their trading upon the reputation established for Enfamil by Mead-Johnson. The packaging and labeling emphasized the word "Enfamil" and did not indicate that the product was manufactured and prepared by Baby's Formula. The district court found that the labeling used by the appellee was likely to cause confusion and deception of the purchasing public. But the packaging of the reconstituted Enfamil for retail sale by the appellee was another matter. Furthermore, the lettering on the labels would not confuse the buyer as to the source of the product or its nature. The containers sold by Baby's Formula indicated that Enfamil was the main ingredient and that it had been reconstituted into its present form by Baby's Formula Service, Inc. Mead-Johnson does not dispute the fact that until the retail operations began, the appellee's use of the trademark product, Enfamil, was proper. It is at this juncture, however, that the difficulty begins.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |