Echo Travel, Inc. v. Travel Associates, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
870 F.2d 1264 (1989)
- Written by Emily Houde, JD
Facts
Echo Travel, Inc. (Echo) (plaintiff) and Travel Associates, Inc. (Associates) are companies that sell travel tours, including tours to college students to Daytona Beach for spring break. In its 1985 campaign, Echo contacted Jiloty, Shipley & Associates (Jiloty), an advertising agency, to inquire about using some of Jiloty’s outtakes from a previous campaign. Jiloty sent Echo a photograph of a beach scene with three models staged in it. In 1986, Associates also contacted Jiloty for help with its campaign, and Jiloty sent Associates the same outtake photograph that had been sent to Echo. In January 1987, Echo sued Associates for unfair competition. Echo offered consumer testimony that the advertisements had acquired secondary meaning, but the consumers were not qualified. Associates filed for summary judgment, and the district court ruled in favor of Associates, dismissing the case. Specifically, the district court found that the photograph did not depict a distinct scene, Echo did not have exclusive ownership over the rights to the photo, and Echo could not show that the photo had acquired secondary meaning. Echo then appealed the district court’s decision and challenged the district court’s ruling that the photo had not acquired secondary meaning.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
