cases/15usc1125/VARIANTS.md

Source: cases/15usc1125/VARIANTS.md
Exact source text

# 15usc1125 -- variant catalogue (GENERATED by tools/casedsl.py variants; do not edit)

10 cases, 28 blocks, 90 verbatim quotes. **16 instances** (statute applied to the case's own facts, decided on the merits by this court); 2 applied-but-not-reached; 10 other rulings (comparator / rule-announced / background citations, or procedural / hypothetical / alternative / dissent / lower-court scope) listed separately at the end and NOT counted in the catalogue.

Citation role per case: applied 9, rule-announced 1.

Holding codes: S = satisfied, N = not-satisfied, - = not-reached. Pointer = `file.case` @first-quote-offset.

## Coverage

| element | cases | S | N | - | genera | variants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| actionable-interest | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| commerce-use | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| commercial-injury | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| commercial-promotion | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| consumer-deception | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| false-association | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| false-fact | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| likely-confusion | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| nonfunctional-dress | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| protected-mark | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| proximate-cause | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| defense: descriptive-fair-use | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |

## element `actionable-interest`

- **licensing/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `licensing/enforcement-reserved-to-licensor`
    - N [law] `f3d-920-704-kroma-makeup-v-boldface.case` @623 -- Kroma Makeup Eu v. Boldface Licensing & Branding (2019) -- party=Kroma EU against Kardashian defendants

## element `commerce-use`

- **infringing-use/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `infringing-use/trade-show-brochures`
    - S [law] `f3d-921-1364-versatop-v-georgia-expo.case` @19596 -- Versatop Support Sys., LLC v. Ga. Expo, Inc. (2019)

## element `commercial-injury`

- **zone-of-interests/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `zone-of-interests/reputation-and-sales`
    - S [pleaded] `us-572-118-lexmark-v-static-control.case` @19861 -- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014) -- party=Static Control

## element `commercial-promotion`

- **assumed-coverage/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 0 / - 1)
  - `assumed-coverage/letters-and-cartridge-notices`
    - - `us-572-118-lexmark-v-static-control.case` @37567 -- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)
- **audience/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `audience/investor-filings-and-calls`
    - N [pleaded] `f-supp-3d-378-823-genus-v-lannett.case` @6179 -- Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. (2019) -- party=Genus against Lannett; count=Grandfathered and preliminary-NDA statements

## element `consumer-deception`

- **implied-approval/** -- 2 (S 1 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `implied-approval/general-compliance-website`
    - N [pleaded] `f-supp-3d-378-823-genus-v-lannett.case` @40130 -- Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. (2019) -- party=Genus against Lannett; count=General website compliance statements
  - `implied-approval/pharmacist-survey`
    - S [pleaded] `f-supp-3d-378-823-genus-v-lannett.case` @24209 -- Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. (2019) -- party=Genus against Lannett; count=Price lists conveyed to customers

## element `false-association`

- **origin-of-goods/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `origin-of-goods/public-domain-video-copying`
    - N [law] `us-539-23-dastar-v-twentieth-century-fox.case` @2270 -- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003) -- theory=Reverse passing off based on unattributed authorship

## element `false-fact`

- **literal-falsity/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `literal-falsity/topical-route-label`
    - S [pleaded] `f-supp-3d-378-823-genus-v-lannett.case` @31994 -- Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. (2019) -- party=Genus against Lannett; count=Route of administration
- **misleading-description/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `misleading-description/generic-search-summary`
    - S [pleaded] `f-supp-3d-378-823-genus-v-lannett.case` @6900 -- Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. (2019) -- party=Genus against Lannett; count=Website meta description

## element `likely-confusion`

- **market-overlap/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `market-overlap/identical-marks-and-goods`
    - S [law] `f3d-921-1364-versatop-v-georgia-expo.case` @18544 -- Versatop Support Sys., LLC v. Ga. Expo, Inc. (2019)

## element `nonfunctional-dress`

- **product-design/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `product-design/ornamental-coffee-press`
    - S [proved] `f3d-927-486-bodum-v-a-top.case` @8044 -- Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated (2019) -- theory=Overall appearance, excluding functional carafe and plunger
- **utility-patent/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `utility-patent/dual-spring-road-sign`
    - N [no-evidence] `us-532-23-traffix-v-marketing-displays.case` @8727 -- Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001) -- theory=Functional design claimed in expired utility patents

## element `protected-mark`

- **ownership/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `ownership/uncontested-product-names`
    - S [conceded] `f3d-921-1364-versatop-v-georgia-expo.case` @1542 -- Versatop Support Sys., LLC v. Ga. Expo, Inc. (2019)
- **secondary-meaning/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 0 / - 1)
  - `secondary-meaning/functional-design`
    - - `us-532-23-traffix-v-marketing-displays.case` @16826 -- Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001) -- theory=Source recognition does not cure functionality

## element `proximate-cause`

- **direct-reputational-injury/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `direct-reputational-injury/disparaged-component-supplier`
    - S [pleaded] `us-572-118-lexmark-v-static-control.case` @33497 -- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014) -- party=Static Control; theory=Disparagement of its business as illegal
- **linked-sales/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `linked-sales/one-chip-per-cartridge`
    - S [pleaded] `us-572-118-lexmark-v-static-control.case` @24018 -- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014) -- party=Static Control; theory=Near one-to-one necessary-component sales linkage

## defense `descriptive-fair-use`

- **descriptive-use/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `descriptive-use/sports-nutrition-slogan`
    - S [law] `f3d-932-589-sportfuel-v-pepsico.case` @7033 -- Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. (2019) -- party=Gatorade and PepsiCo; theory=Nontrademark descriptive use in good faith

## Other rulings (not instances; excluded from the counts above)

| role | scope | block | holding | variant | case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| applied | procedural | element consumer-deception | not-satisfied [no-evidence] | `misleading-truth/audience-reach-without-takeaway` | `f3d-928-514-louisiana-pacific-v-james-hardie.case` -- count=Woodpecker imagery |
| applied | procedural | element false-fact | not-satisfied [no-evidence] | `literal-falsity/retouched-woodpecker-image` | `f3d-928-514-louisiana-pacific-v-james-hardie.case` -- count=Woodpecker imagery |
| applied | procedural | element false-fact | not-satisfied [law] | `puffery/pests-love-it` | `f3d-928-514-louisiana-pacific-v-james-hardie.case` -- count=Pests Love It headline |
| applied | procedural | element false-fact | not-satisfied [no-evidence] | `literal-falsity/ambiguous-termite-damage` | `f3d-928-514-louisiana-pacific-v-james-hardie.case` -- count=Subject to damage sentence |
| applied | procedural | element nonfunctional-dress | not-reached | `evidence/utility-patent-exclusion` | `f3d-927-486-bodum-v-a-top.case` -- theory=Rule 403 exclusion of patent illustrations |
| applied | procedural | element relief | not-satisfied [law] | `preliminary-injunction/no-likelihood-of-success` | `f3d-928-514-louisiana-pacific-v-james-hardie.case` |
| applied | procedural | element relief | not-reached | `profits/doubling-to-deter` | `us-539-23-dastar-v-twentieth-century-fox.case` |
| rule-announced | hypothetical | element false-fact | not-reached | `hypothetical-advertising/claimed-difference-from-copied-video` | `us-539-23-dastar-v-twentieth-century-fox.case` -- theory=Possible subsection (B) misrepresentation distinct from pleaded subsection (A) claim |
| rule-announced | merits | element likely-confusion | not-reached | `confusion/reverse-confusion` | `f3d-932-589-sportfuel-v-pepsico.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element protected-mark | not-reached | `product-design/secondary-meaning-required` | `us-529-205-wal-mart-v-samara-brothers.case` -- theory=Children clothing design, not product packaging |

## Fact-line polarity

42 fact lines: cuts-against 14, supports 28; 5 of them flagged `absent` (the court notes what is NOT alleged or proved).