Kraft, Inc. v. AmBrit, Inc.

How later courts describe this case

• implying that delay of less than two years would not constitute laches
• rejecting de novo review, adhering to “clear error” for review of finding of similarity in trade dress infringement
• "The precise scope of the category of claims to which the Cuyler standard applies has not been definitively stated by the Supreme Court"
• “That Kraft in fact used the mark in 1980 does not mean that Kraft intended to use mark in 1978.”
• Four examples of consumer confusion sufficient to create a fact dispute regarding actual confusion and “[ajctual consumer confusion is the best evidence of likelihood of confusion.”
• "it takes very little evidence to establish the existence of the actual confusion factor"
• “Klondike” and “Polar B’ar” brand ice cream bars
• ambiguous evidence insufficient to establish constitutional malice