courtroomcast.lexisnexis.comLegal Audio Opinions and Courtroom Video - LexisNexis Courtroom Cast

LexisNexis ® Courtroom Cast Powered by Courtroom View Network Search AudioCaseFiles Video Cases Witnesses Industries Practices Training About What Is Courtroom Cast? Login & Register Support Courtroom Cast News Featured Audio Opinion Yankee Candle Company, Inc. v. Bridgewater Candle Company, LLC United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Brief Fact Summary Yankee Candle Company claimed that Bridgewater candle Candle Company infringed Yankee’s trade dress by copying their method of shelving, by copying the overall look and feel of a line of candles, and by copying the design of Yankee’s merchandising catalog. Rule of Law and Holding Detachable labels, as product packaging, may be inherently distinctive. . . . A trade dress plaintiff seeking to protect a series or line of products faces a particularly difficult challenge, as it must show that the appearance of the several products is "sufficiently distinct and unique to merit protection." Proof of secondary meaning requires evidence that consumers associate the trade dress with the source. Topics Trademark - Distinctiveness Search all Audio Opinions Featured Trial Video Pryde v. Virginia Tech Trial in Montgomery County, VA Description This five day jury trial suit accuses University officials of gross negligence for not immediately warning students of two shootings that occurred in a dormitory at 7:15 am on the day of the school’s mass shootings. By the time the school sent out an email alerting the campus of the shooting incident, two hours later, student gunman Seung-Hui Cho had already chained the doors shut to Norris Hall and killed 30 others and himself. Practice Area Negligence Industry Education Browse the Video Archive Featured Training Clip Trust Company of the West v. Jeffery Gundlach, et al. Library: Evidence Clip Analysis 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false The attorney lays a foundation for the admission of a conversation into evidence and authenticates its contents before the jury. The attorney is then able to ask the witness to testify as to the contents of the conversation, which he does effectively. This clip also serves as an example of FRE 803(3). The conversations admitted into evidence are out of court statements that are being offered by counsel to prove the truth of the matters they assert. However, the attorney is careful to pick out the statements that speak to the witness’s state of mind and thus, eliminates any possibility for a FRE 803 hearsay objection. FRE Article 8: Hearsay Rule 803(3): Then-Existing Condition Go to the Training Library Help What Is Courtroom Cast? Support Demos Feedback Courtroom Cast Blog Browse Audio by Subject Criminal Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Contracts Property Law Torts Evidence Corporations Criminal Procedure Intellectual Property Professional Responsibility Browse Audio by Casebook Criminal Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Contracts Property Law Torts Evidence Corporations Criminal Procedure Intellectual Property Professional Responsibility Browse Video Cases Jurisdiction Judge Practice Area Industry Law Firm Lawyer Party Training Trial Advocacy Rules of Evidence Appellate Advocacy Use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms and Conditions and Privacy...