Blast from the past: nominative fair use avant la lettre

Polyglycoat Corp. v. Environmental Chemicals, Inc., 509 F.Supp. 36 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)Found this in an unrelated search and it made me think about the utility (if any) of the nominative fair use category. Plaintiff sued defendant for advertising of defendant’s automotive silicone paint finish remover called POLYCRACKER. Plaintiff’s Polyglycoat, a protective paint finish sealant for automobiles, was heavily referenced on Polycracker’s label and its launch ad in Auto Body Repair News, a trade journal:The words “Polyglycoat TM Remover” appear conspiciously on the POLYCRACKER label, one page of the ad consists solely of the bold-lettered statement “WIPE AWAY POLYGLYCOAT TM”, and the body of the ad contains such statements as “There’s nothing more troublesome for auto body shops than silicone finishes like Polyglycoat” and “Take off Polyglycoat with the wipe of a cloth.” In terms of the Polaroid factors, the court…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply