Kraft, Inc. v. AmBrit, Inc.

implying that delay of less than two years would not constitute laches | 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 | implying that'delay of less than two years would not constitute laches | "The precise scope of the category of claims to which the Cuyler standard applies has not been definitively stated by the Supreme Court" | "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.” | "The precise scope of the category of claims to which the Cuyler standard applies has not been definitively stated by the Supreme Court" | "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 | ambiguous evidence insufficient to establish constitutional malice