M. Kramer Manufacturing Co. v. Andrews

783 F.2d 421 (1986)

From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

M. Kramer Manufacturing Co. v. Andrews

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
783 F.2d 421 (1986)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

M. Kramer Manufacturing Company (plaintiff) produced a video game called Hi-Lo Double Up Joker Poker, which was housed in a console. Hugh Andrews (defendant) copied Kramer’s circuit board with minor changes and released a competing game. The rules and play of the two games were almost identical, and Andrews’s console was extremely similar to Kramer’s console. The dimensions of the consoles were the same, the artwork on the consoles was the same, and both consoles featured the name of the game in the exact same position. The only differences were slight color variations. Kramer filed suit for trademark infringement, including a trade-dress cause of action. The district court found in favor of Andrews, and Kramer appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The appellate court specifically addressed the trade-dress cause of action on appeal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Russell, 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 966,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools 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 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 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.
  • AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 966,000 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
  • 47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,007 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

Casebooks

Entertainment Law

Key Terms

  • TrademarkA symbolic representation of a company or product.
  • Secondary MeaningA meaning attributed to a particular feature of a product whereby the feature is no longer primarily associated with the product itself, but rather the source of the product.
  • Trade DressDistinctive, nonfunctional elements of a product’s design, packaging, or manufacture that are the intellectual property of its maker.
  • Likelihood of ConfusionThe probability that potential consumers will be confused about the source of the product. Courts use likelihood of confusion as a standard to evaluate trademark infringement claims.
  • Trademark InfringementUnauthorized use of subject matter similar enough to trademarked subject matter likely to cause confusion in the mind of an ordinary consumer as to the source of a product.

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

Case book preview
Start your free 7-day trial