The Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
535 U.S. 826 (2002)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. (Vornado) (defendant) manufactured patented fans and heaters. Vornado brought an action in federal district court against a competitor, Duracraft Corp., alleging infringement of trade dress. The court found in favor of Duracraft, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Later, Vornado filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission against another competitor, The Holmes Group, Inc. (Holmes) (plaintiff). Vornado alleged that Holmes had infringed the same design involved in the earlier trade-dress litigation. Holmes initiated an action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, seeking a declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe Vornado’s trade dress as well as an injunction against future accusations along the same lines. Vornado’s answer included a counterclaim of patent infringement. The court found in favor of Holmes, granting both the declaratory judgment and the injunction. Vornado appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case. Holmes challenged the Federal Circuit court’s jurisdiction—an issue that was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (Ginsburg, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
