Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Charles Jacquin Et Cie, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
921 F.2d 467 (3d Cir. 1990)


Charles Jacquin Et Cie, Inc. (Jacquin) (plaintiff) was a producer of alcoholic beverages based in Pennsylvania. Jacquin developed a particular bottle for its line of cordials that was just under 11 inches tall and had a tapered bottom. Jacquin used the image of its distinctive bottle in most of its advertising. Destileria Serralles, Inc. (DSI) (defendant) was a producer of rum schnapps based in Puerto Rico. DSI developed a line of rum schnapps to market in the United States under the name Don Juan. DSI developed a bottle for its Don Juan line that was 10 inches tall with a tapered bottom. Although there were some differences between the bottles used by Jacquin and DSI, they appeared similar from the side. Crown Marketing International (Crown) (defendant) distributed Don Juan for sale in several states. Jacquin sued DSI and Crown under the Lanham Act for infringement of Jacquin’s trade dress. Jacquin presented evidence of its sales in eight states. This evidence was meant to show the geographic areas where Jacquin’s trade dress had allegedly acquired secondary meaning in the cordials market and consumer confusion was likely. However, Jacquin’s sales accounted for more than three percent of all cordial sales in only three of the states. Further, Jacquin did not present any evidence that its tapered bottle had acquired secondary meaning beyond the cordials market, like in the larger distilled-spirits market. A jury found infringement. However, the district court found that an injunction stopping DSI from using a similar bottle was appropriate only in Pennsylvania, where Jacquin’s market penetration was highest. Additionally, the district court limited the injunction’s protection to “cordials and specialties.” On appeal, Jacquin argued that the district court erred in limiting the scope of the injunction to: (1) Pennsylvania and (2) just cordials and specialties rather than the broader category of “spirits.”

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Nygaard, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 496,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 496,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial