## Facts

- My-T-Fine Corp. sold a chocolate-and-sugar confection used to make pudding in small cardboard cartons.
- Over time, My-T-Fine adopted a distinctive carton “get-up,” prominently featuring a green base color with red elements and other recurring design features; the suit focused on the version in use from 1929 onward.
- By 1933, My-T-Fine had very large nationwide sales and had spent substantial sums on advertising, contributing to public recognition of the packaging; some consumers referred to it as the “red and green” package, though most ordered by the “My-T-Fine” name.
- Defendants marketed a competing pudding product under the name “Velmo” in similar small cardboard cartons.
- My-T-Fine alleged defendants copied the overall appearance of its carton (trade dress) in a manner likely to divert sales through consumer confusion.
- The action, brought in federal court on diversity jurisdiction, sought injunctive relief for unfair competition; the trial court denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether My-T-Fine’s carton appearance had acquired secondary meaning such that its trade dress was protectable under unfair competition law.
2. Whether defendants’ similar carton created a likelihood of confusion as to source despite different product names on the packages and evidence that many purchasers ordered by brand name.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held that defendants’ packaging unlawfully imitated My-T-Fine’s distinctive trade dress and constituted unfair competition.
- The case was remanded with directions to grant appropriate injunctive relief against use of the offending package design.

## Legal Principles

- Product packaging (trade dress) is protectable under unfair competition law when, through extensive use, advertising, and sales, it acquires secondary meaning identifying a single source.
- Likelihood of confusion may be found based on the overall visual impression of the packages as encountered by ordinary purchasers in typical shopping conditions.
- Different brand names on competing packages do not preclude liability where the defendant’s overall get-up is sufficiently similar to cause confusion or to appropriate the plaintiff’s goodwill.
- Competition permits copying of non-protected features, but it does not permit copying that goes so far as to mislead purchasers into believing they are buying the plaintiff’s product.

## Conclusion

The court ordered protection for My-T-Fine’s distinctive carton appearance because the packaging had become source-identifying and defendants’ similar get-up was likely to confuse ordinary purchasers, making the conduct actionable unfair competition even though the parties used different brand names.


My-T-Fine Corp. v. Samuels, 69 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1934)