Connection lost
Server error
MISHAWAKA MFG. CO. v. KRESGE CO. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: In a trademark infringement case, the Supreme Court held that once the trademark owner proves the infringer’s sales, the burden shifts to the infringer to prove that its profits were not attributable to the infringing mark, rather than requiring the owner to prove which sales were lost.
Legal Significance: This case established a crucial burden-shifting framework for calculating an infringer’s profits in trademark law. It presumes profits are attributable to the infringement unless the infringer proves otherwise, thereby protecting the trademark owner’s goodwill and ensuring any windfall benefits the victim, not the wrongdoer.
MISHAWAKA MFG. CO. v. KRESGE CO. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Mishawaka Manufacturing Co. produced shoes and rubber heels featuring a registered trademark: a red circular plug embedded in the heel’s center. Mishawaka invested significantly in promoting this mark to build consumer goodwill. Respondent S.S. Kresge Co. sold heels, not made by Mishawaka, that bore a nearly identical red circular plug. The lower courts found that Kresge’s heels were of inferior quality and that the mark was so similar as to create a “reasonable likelihood” of consumer confusion, thus constituting trademark infringement. However, the District Court’s decree limited Mishawaka’s recovery of Kresge’s profits to only those sales where Mishawaka could affirmatively prove that purchasers were induced to buy because they believed they were getting Mishawaka’s product and that Mishawaka would have otherwise made those sales. Mishawaka appealed this remedial limitation, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari solely on the issue of the proper measure of profits for trademark infringement.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In an action for an accounting of profits for trademark infringement under the Trade-Mark Act of 1905, does the burden fall on the trademark owner to prove that the infringer’s profits are attributable to the infringement, or does the burden fall on the infringer to prove they are not?
Yes, the lower court erred. The burden is on the infringer to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidata
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
In an action for an accounting of profits for trademark infringement under the Trade-Mark Act of 1905, does the burden fall on the trademark owner to prove that the infringer’s profits are attributable to the infringement, or does the burden fall on the infringer to prove they are not?
Conclusion
This decision established a foundational, plaintiff-friendly presumption in trademark remedies, solidifying that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna a
Legal Rule
Under § 19 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1905, once infringement is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis
Legal Analysis
The Court, through Justice Frankfurter, emphasized that a trademark's value lies in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pr
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a trademark infringement suit, the plaintiff only needs to prove