Source: cases/15usc1125/RESEARCH.md
# Wave 2 — 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Research date: 2026-11-10. Ten opinions, 28 blocks, 90 verbatim quote lines, 16 decided applied-merits instances. This is authoring evidence for independent review, not reviewer signoff. All quotes were selected from contextual readings of canonical IR, filled once, and frozen. No source corpus, law file, shared tools, shared notes, or memory files were changed. ## Selection and limits The sample covers Supreme Court decisions from 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2014, and six 2019 opinions from the Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh and Federal Circuits and N.D. California. The law catalogue's seven local opinions provide continuity with its rule pins; Wal-Mart, TrafFix and Dastar add distinctiveness, functionality and tangible-origin boundaries. Positive and negative outcomes include trial-verdict sufficiency, summary judgment, pleading survival/failure, preliminary relief and a rule-selection remand. Louisiana-Pacific is a procedural-only example: its five blocks concern preliminary likelihood of success or preliminary relief, with no final merits instance. Wal-Mart is a rule-announcement-only example. Bodum's evidentiary ruling, Dastar's hypothetical advertising claim and reserved profits issue, and Lexmark's assumed promotion premise are also excluded from instances. No artificial comparator was added merely to populate a label. POM Wonderful, 573 U.S. 102, was considered but its local IR volume was unavailable; no external text was substituted into a canonical quote. No blanket inference establishes unreviewed elements because a case won. Bodum yields only its actually reviewed nonfunctionality merits instance; Kroma yields one dispositive enforcement-rights instance. Wal-Mart does not find secondary meaning lacking. Dastar concerns subsection (A) reverse passing off, while its possible subsection (B) claim is hypothetical. Lexmark separately supports commercial injury and two proximate-cause routes, not falsity, promotion, materiality, or ultimate relief. No materiality merits instance is manufactured from Louisiana-Pacific's discussion of purchasing influence. Genus is truncated at 60,000 characters during the First Databank discussion. Its opening paragraph reports the overall mixed disposition, but only the complete, observed Lannett discussions supply substantive blocks. The absent remainder is not reconstructed. The source's early sentence calling Goprelto Lannett's product conflicts with surrounding ownership facts and is not used as a quote. OCR is preserved, including Wal-Mart's “protective” and TrafFix's “cany.” Louisiana-Pacific's metadata court label is corrected from “Six Circuit” to “Sixth Circuit.” ## Findings requiring schema or reviewer attention 1. **Successful defense at summary judgment lacks a basis value.** SportFuel's fair-use defense is actually applied and established, but it is neither a trial finding nor conceded. `triable` would wrongly describe merely surviving summary judgment, and `no-evidence` cannot accompany a successful defense. The annotation uses `satisfied [law]` for legal entitlement on the record viewed in SportFuel's favor, with an explicit limitation. This is a basis-fit review point, not a claim that the facts are legally irrelevant. A future schema needs a summary-judgment-established basis. The confusion block remains `not-reached`/`rule-announced`. 2. **Provisional merits have no scope.** Louisiana-Pacific uses `procedural` to prevent preliminary evidentiary conclusions from entering the final merits instance set. Its `no-evidence` labels mean insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing, not final summary judgment. A dedicated provisional-merits scope and provisional proof basis would be more exact. 3. **Assumed predicate is not a holding.** Lexmark's expressly assumed commercial-promotion premise is `not-reached`, which excludes it from instances without an alternative-scope override. The issue was not before the Court. No satisfied promotion instance follows from the Court allowing the suit to proceed. 4. **Legal disposition on undisputed facts.** VersaTop actually enters judgment for the trademark claimant; `law` distinguishes that resolution from `triable` survival and `proved` trial factfinding. Kroma's `law` is contract construction, not missing evidentiary proof. TrafFix uses `no-evidence` because the claimant cannot overcome the patent-based functionality showing on the summary-judgment record. These choices warrant independent review against the v1 vocabulary. 5. **Original catalogue behavior.** The original `variants` tool reports 16 instances correctly, but includes the applied-merits `not-reached` TrafFix protected-mark and Lexmark commercial-promotion rows in its coverage table and main variants section (the `-` column). Those rows are not decided instances. The generated file is retained unedited; consumers must use `block.instance`, not all catalogue rows, to count applications. 6. **Flat relationships and result labels.** Lexmark's two proximate-cause routes have typed theory qualifiers but no structured OR relationship. A claimant-won result there means successful pleading preservation; VersaTop means liability judgment with further proceedings; neither implies an award of every remedy. Dastar and TrafFix are claimant-lost on the relevant claim despite remands for further proceedings. ## Historical/current-law boundary These are historical case annotations, not a comprehensive 2026 citator. Genus's cited advertising formulation includes an old competitor condition; the annotated holding instead concerns commercial purpose and dissemination. Lexmark's no-direct-competition rule is not erased. No global territorial conclusion is drawn from VersaTop's 2019 use discussion; the law notes separately address Abitron (2023). No categorical confusion-free requirement is added to descriptive fair use; remedies remain separate from liability. Later amendments or decisions are not back-attributed to these opinions. The official [Wal-Mart report](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep529/usrep529205/usrep529205.pdf) confirms the product-design secondary-meaning rule and remand. The official [TrafFix report](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep532/usrep532023/usrep532023.pdf) confirms the functionality bar, patent evidence and unresolved secondary meaning. These external sources are cross-checks only: every `.case` quote comes from the pinned IR. An attempted Supreme Court slip-opinion URL for Lexmark was unavailable; the canonical local opinion and existing law research record were used. ## Contextual reading windows and source pins Offsets are Python Unicode code points, start inclusive/end exclusive. Windows below identify the text actually retrieved and read, not isolated search hits. Genus and Lexmark are selected-window readings; the remaining local opinions were read across their complete canonical records. The compact rule/holding pins below are an index; `.case` files contain all fact pins and verbatim content. ### Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. — 378 F. Supp. 3d 823 (2019) - Canonical id: `/f-supp-3d/378/0823-01`; ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_378.jsonl sha1=a49e70d114195e4099e32015562072528921d5c7 chars=60000. - Read: 0..13000; 18494..42000; 53738..60000 (truncated IR). - Annotation: [f-supp-3d-378-823-genus-v-lannett.case](f-supp-3d-378-823-genus-v-lannett.case); 5 blocks; 5 instances. - `commercial-promotion` / `audience/investor-filings-and-calls`: rule 30196..30588; held 30614..30923. - `consumer-deception` / `implied-approval/pharmacist-survey`: held 25027..25146. - `false-fact` / `literal-falsity/topical-route-label`: held 33762..33849. - `false-fact` / `misleading-description/generic-search-summary`: held 37644..37756. - `consumer-deception` / `implied-approval/general-compliance-website`: held 40886..41145. ### Kroma Makeup Eu v. Boldface Licensing & Branding — 920 F.3d 704 (2019) - Canonical id: `/f3d/920/0704-01`; ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl sha1=8592221ae2e2466a011029534daf62b4f5e304e8 chars=17048. - Read: 0..17048. - Annotation: [f3d-920-704-kroma-makeup-v-boldface.case](f3d-920-704-kroma-makeup-v-boldface.case); 1 blocks; 1 instances. - `actionable-interest` / `licensing/enforcement-reserved-to-licensor`: rule 7190..7391; held 16861..16979. ### Versatop Support Sys., LLC v. Ga. Expo, Inc. — 921 F.3d 1364 (2019) - Canonical id: `/f3d/921/1364-01`; ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl sha1=48ced4dbb529e86d289237579add0a19772018ab chars=22488. - Read: 0..22488. - Annotation: [f3d-921-1364-versatop-v-georgia-expo.case](f3d-921-1364-versatop-v-georgia-expo.case); 3 blocks; 3 instances. - `commerce-use` / `infringing-use/trade-show-brochures`: rule 15449..15774; held 862..951. - `protected-mark` / `ownership/uncontested-product-names`: held 4623..4703. - `likely-confusion` / `market-overlap/identical-marks-and-goods`: rule 18544..19034; held 21850..21943. ### Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated — 927 F.3d 486 (2019) - Canonical id: `/f3d/927/0486-01`; ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl sha1=ce0e15d0c91a562d238b072227680c2394d6480f chars=31746. - Read: 0..31746. - Annotation: [f3d-927-486-bodum-v-a-top.case](f3d-927-486-bodum-v-a-top.case); 2 blocks; 1 instances. - `nonfunctional-dress` / `product-design/ornamental-coffee-press`: rule 8044..9018; held 18513..18838. - `nonfunctional-dress` / `evidence/utility-patent-exclusion`: rule 19090..19259; held 25427..25502. ### La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) - Canonical id: `/f3d/928/0514-01`; ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl sha1=471c688f92cb7d2d78e6392ce6d59925bceaa53d chars=14802. - Read: 0..14802. - Annotation: [f3d-928-514-louisiana-pacific-v-james-hardie.case](f3d-928-514-louisiana-pacific-v-james-hardie.case); 5 blocks; 0 instances. - `false-fact` / `literal-falsity/retouched-woodpecker-image`: rule 5426..5558; held 6664..6911. - `consumer-deception` / `misleading-truth/audience-reach-without-takeaway`: rule 4125..4449; held 8457..8555. - `false-fact` / `puffery/pests-love-it`: rule 9278..9372; held 9116..9277. - `false-fact` / `literal-falsity/ambiguous-termite-damage`: rule 11969..12125; held 13060..13168. - `relief` / `preliminary-injunction/no-likelihood-of-success`: rule 3233..3363; held 14359..14471. ### Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) - Canonical id: `/f3d/932/0589-01`; ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl sha1=203df98e4bfc17cdfba2ce87c0a2c45e994ed13e chars=27554. - Read: 0..27554. - Annotation: [f3d-932-589-sportfuel-v-pepsico.case](f3d-932-589-sportfuel-v-pepsico.case); 2 blocks; 1 instances. - `descriptive-fair-use` / `descriptive-use/sports-nutrition-slogan`: rule 7033..7251; held 12299..12486; held 18007..18084; held 26440..26581. - `likely-confusion` / `confusion/reverse-confusion`: rule 5934..6141. ### Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. — 529 U.S. 205 (2000) - Canonical id: `/us/529/0205-01`; ir/caselaw/us_529.jsonl sha1=bb19b78edba03a90513d38683bfa32f80b77e98b chars=18371. - Read: 0..18371. - Annotation: [us-529-205-wal-mart-v-samara-brothers.case](us-529-205-wal-mart-v-samara-brothers.case); 1 blocks; 0 instances. - `protected-mark` / `product-design/secondary-meaning-required`: rule 17416..17623; held 17624..17750. ### Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. — 532 U.S. 23 (2001) - Canonical id: `/us/532/0023-01`; ir/caselaw/us_532.jsonl sha1=ede8b5c7c96734c26b17d781baa9fb74f26bd9d7 chars=20895. - Read: 0..20895. - Annotation: [us-532-23-traffix-v-marketing-displays.case](us-532-23-traffix-v-marketing-displays.case); 2 blocks; 1 instances. - `nonfunctional-dress` / `utility-patent/dual-spring-road-sign`: rule 8727..8812; held 9620..9871. - `protected-mark` / `secondary-meaning/functional-design`: held 16826..16952. ### Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. — 539 U.S. 23 (2003) - Canonical id: `/us/539/0023-01`; ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl sha1=998b65ca299add261d6d33a1b4d50c3f93543780 chars=27497. - Read: 0..27497. - Annotation: [us-539-23-dastar-v-twentieth-century-fox.case](us-539-23-dastar-v-twentieth-century-fox.case); 3 blocks; 1 instances. - `false-association` / `origin-of-goods/public-domain-video-copying`: rule 21169..21594; held 23135..23273. - `false-fact` / `hypothetical-advertising/claimed-difference-from-copied-video`: rule 22531..23024. - `relief` / `profits/doubling-to-deter`: held 23274..23384. ### Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. — 572 U.S. 118 (2014) - Canonical id: `/us/572/0118-01`; ir/caselaw/us_572.jsonl sha1=2093b1be86d5c41c929396d343cc9e981ebae1c5 chars=43146. - Read: 0..8000; 16751..24747; 29345..39500. - Annotation: [us-572-118-lexmark-v-static-control.case](us-572-118-lexmark-v-static-control.case); 4 blocks; 3 instances. - `commercial-injury` / `zone-of-interests/reputation-and-sales`: rule 19861..20047; held 30878..31048. - `proximate-cause` / `direct-reputational-injury/disparaged-component-supplier`: rule 33497..33836; held 31957..32059. - `proximate-cause` / `linked-sales/one-chip-per-cartridge`: rule 24018..24297; held 36541..36658. - `commercial-promotion` / `assumed-coverage/letters-and-cartridge-notices`: held 37567..37691. ## Verification Executed against original corpus tools: ```text python3 tools/casedsl.py fill cases/15usc1125/*.case python3 tools/casedsl.py check cases/15usc1125 # 10 files, 90 quotes, 0 errors python3 tools/casedsl.py variants cases/15usc1125 # 10 cases, 28 blocks, 16 instances ``` A post-fill snapshot records every quote kind, start, end and text in `/tmp/lanham_wave2_frozen_quotes.json`; a final comparison checks no quote changed. This local snapshot is supplementary evidence, not a committed artifact or independent QA. The leader owns shared findings integration and commit/push.