Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.
| Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 1982 Decided June 1, 1982 | |
| Full case name | Inwood Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. |
| Citations | 456 U.S. 844 (more) 102 S. Ct. 2182; 72 L. Ed. 2d 606; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 113; 50 U.S.L.W. 4592; 214 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1; 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1101 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Burger, Brennan, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens |
| Concurrence | White, joined by Marshall |
| Concurrence | Rehnquist |
Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court set forth the standard for analyzing claims of contributory trademark liability, which is one of the two types of secondary liability in trademark law.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, explained that findings, agreeing with the district court's determination: manufacturers of generic drug, which was designed to duplicate appearance of a similar drug marketed by a competitor under a registered trademark, could not be held vicariously liable under Lanham Act for infringement of that trademark by pharmacists who mislabeled generic drugs with competitor's registered trademark.
This case was used in the Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. case.
External links
- See, Contributory Liability Doctrine: The Inwood Standard in Jane Coleman, Secondary Trademark Infringement: A Short Treatise on Contributory and Vicarious Infringement in Trademark (Revised, Sept. 2010).
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |