Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

CPC International, Inc. v. Skippy Inc.

214 F.3d 456 (2000)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

CPC International, Inc. v. Skippy Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

214 F.3d 456 (2000)

Facts

Skippy Incorporated (defendant) owned the trademark to the word Skippy when used in reference to cartoons. Skippy obtained the trademark from Percy Crosby, the creator of a cartoon in 1923 featuring a school-aged child named Skippy. Crosby’s daughter was the president of Skippy. The cartoon character had been marketed in cartoon books, magazine articles, and novels. CPC International (plaintiff) owned the trademark for the word Skippy when related to peanut butter and has been selling peanut butter under that brand since 1933. In 1986, Skippy claimed a right to use the word Skippy as a trademark for caramel corn, popcorn, and nuts. CPC sued Skippy, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. The trial court ruled in CPC’s favor in 1986 and entered an injunction prohibiting Skippy from using the trademarked word in connection with caramel corn, peanut products, and other food products, and prohibiting Skippy from communicating that Skippy had the rights to use the mark for those purposes or that CPC lacked such rights. In 1997, Skippy published a website at skippy.com that recounted Percy Crosby’s life. The website also included a section discussing what it called CPC’s Fraud on the Courts and CPC’s Malicious Prosecution. The website also included a legal notice stating that the trademark was owned by Skippy and could not be used without the permission of Skippy. In 1999, CPC filed a motion with the trial court requesting that Skippy be held in contempt for violating the 1986 injunction. The trial court’s order required Skippy to remove approximately 10 pages of text from the website and stated that future violations would result in a $500 per day damage award. The trial court did not explain how the portions that were ordered to be removed violated the 1986 injunction or why those redactions were generally necessary. Skippy appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wilkinson, C.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 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership