The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Fun-Damental (P) sued Gemmy (D), and Kay Bee Toy (D1) for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act in that D copied P's 'Toilet Bank' for use as D's 'Currency Can.' In 1992 P developed the Toilet Bank complete with flushing sound when its handle was depressed. P began marketing its product in 1994. In May 1995, D1 expressed an interest in carrying the Bank but decided not too as it was deemed to be too expensive. P got word of a similar product at D1 in the name of the Currency Can that was developed by D when it got word of P's product. D admitted that the Currency Can was designed with dimensions virtually identical to those of the Toilet Bank. P offered direct testimony of its national sales manager to demonstrate actual confusion; that customers were complaining because they thought that P was selling its Toilet Bank at a lower price to other retailers. Ds argued that this evidence was hearsay. The court allowed the evidence.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.