Jobs Daughters, it was using the marks for their consumer appeal, not their source-identifying function, and had attached disclaimers stating that the goods were not produced or endorsed by Volkswagen or Audi. (But that was not surprising, given that the court raised the issue for the first time on appeal (below). As precedent, the court cited its online casino gambling www casino swiss casino online uitbetalingen 1980 opinion in.
And in a footnote, the, auto Gold court marginalized, jobs Daughters directly by saying that the case only applied to collective marks, that is, a category of trademarks used by members of a collective group or organization, which online casino gambling www casino swiss casino online uitbetalingen typically have less of a source-identifying function than commercial trademarks, according.The Auto Gold court flatly rejected that argument on the grounds that in. Jobs Daughters and similar cases, the aesthetic functionality doctrine had only exempted aesthetic or ornamental features, like product color or shape, and only when they had some function wholly independent of any source-identifying function.The main focus of the courts opinion was whether Fleischer had in fact purchased the copyrights to the Betty Boop character. The court concluded that Fleischer had not, because the party from which Fleischer had purportedly purchased its rights did not have an unbroken chain of title.