L. A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.

holding that if a collective bargaining agreement is ambiguous with respect to vesting, a court properly should resort to extrinsic evidence | stating that in contract interpretation, default rules such as presumptions should only be used after extrinsic evidence has been considered | no evidence of urgent need to promote firefighter captains that might justify racially, adjusting test results | “Trade dress is thus viewed as the overall combination and arrangement of design elements into the total image by which the product is perceived by the consuming public.” | "[T]he [Supreme] Court has limited a savings clause if it presents `an irreconcilable conflict between the statutory scheme and the persistence of common-law remedies,'... or if it would `undermine [a] carefully drawn statute.'" (citations omitted) | “[T]he [Supreme] Court has limited a savings clause if it presents ‘an irreconcilable conflict between the statutory scheme and the persistence of common-law remedies,’ ... or if it would ‘undermine [a] carefully drawn statute.’” (citations omitted) | (o)ur remand for a new trial was not an invitation to reopen discovery for newly retained expert witnesses and to enlarge trial time unnecessarily through the addition of totally new exhibits and testimony | “We conclude that the conspicuous and permanent placement of the trademarks of L.A. Gear as well as the copyist, and the sophistication of purchasers of fashion athletic shoes, clearly outweigh the similarities in the shoe design, insofar as consumer confusion as to source is avoided” | same and applying Second Circuit law