Dippin’ Dots, Inc v. Frosty Bites Distribution, LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
369 F.3d 1197 (2004)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
In 1999, several retailers for Dippin’ Dots, Inc. (DDI) (plaintiff) formed the competing business Frosty Bites Distribution, LLC (FBD) (defendant) while still under contract with DDI. In March 2000, those retailers terminated their contracts and converted the former DDI locations by using the new FBD logo. As a result, DDI filed suit under the Lanham Act, alleging infringement of its unique flash-frozen ice cream product and its logo design. FBD moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted it, finding that the flash-frozen design was functional rather than unique and that the logos were so dissimilar that no consumer was likely to confuse the two. In determining that the product design was functional, the court took judicial notice of the fact that the color of ice cream indicates flavor. At oral arguments of the motion, the court questioned DDI’s counsel about the appropriateness of taking judicial notice, with DDI conceding that, generally, certain colors indicate certain flavors. DDI appealed the dismissal, arguing that the court taking judicial notice was ultimately improper.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dubina, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
