|
STATE
OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
IV |
|
|
|
Diversified
Investments Corporation d/b/a Pacific
Cycle U.S.A., a Wisconsin corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Regent
Insurance Company, an insurance company licensed
to do business in the State of Wisconsin,
Defendant-Respondent. |
FILED May 14, 1999 CLERK OF COURT Of APPEALS OF WISCONSIN |
|||
ERRATA SHEET
Marilyn L. Graves
Clerk of Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 1688
Madison, WI 53701-1688
Court of Appeals District I
633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400
Milwaukee, WI 53203-1918
Court of Appeals District III
740 Third Street
Wausau, WI 54403-5784
Jennifer Krapf
Administrative Assistant
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703
Peg Carlson
Chief Staff Attorney
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703
Court of Appeals District II
2727 N. Grandview Blvd.
Waukesha, WI 53188-1672
Court of Appeals District IV
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703
Hon. Paul B. Higginbotham,
City-County Bldg.
210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
Madison, WI 53709
Judith A. Coleman, Clerk
Rm GR-10, City-County Bldg.
210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
Madison, WI 53709
Michael B. Apfeld
Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.
780 North Water St., Ste. 1600
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590
Robert F. Johnson
Cook & Franke, S.C.
660 E. Mason St.
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3877
Heidi Vogt
Cook & Franke, S.C.
660 E. Mason St.
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3877
Lee Anne N. Conta
Cook & Franke, S.C.
660 E. Mason Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3877
(L.C. #97-CV-1544)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached page 10 is to be substituted for page 10 in the above-captioned opinion which was released on April 8, 1999.
Advance Watch line of cases, and we adopt that reasoning here. We therefore reject Pacific’s argument that simply marketing a product which bears an infringing mark or dress—here, Pacific’s bicycles with GT’s trademarked design and names—satisfies the requirement that there be a causal connection between the injury alleged in the underlying action and advertising activities.[1] Because we so hold, we need not address the other arguments advanced by Pacific.
By
the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
Not recommended for publication in the official reports.
[1] We do not see any difference between the causal requirement in trademark infringement cases, and in cases involving copyright or patent infringement. We agree with the district court’s statement in Robert Bowden, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 977 F. Supp. 1475, 1481 n.3 (N.D. Ga. 1997), that “[t]he requisite level of causation between advertising and alleged injury should not vary with the particular type of intellectual property in question.”