Potucek v. Taylor, 738 F.Supp. 466, 469-70 (M.D.Fla.1990). As stated by the district court, the Lanham Act does not concern itself with the question of whether an item is in the public domain or with the related question of whether the item is a trade secret. These questions are left to state law that protects trade secrets. Accordingly, Dole’s arguments regarding MD-2’s availability in the public domain have no bearing on Del Monte’s claim under the Lanham Act. c. Articles In Public Domain Are Protected Under Lanham Act Decisions of other courts support the conclusion t .2d 837, 842 (3d Cir.1983) (stating that only imaginable way for copier not to be liable under Lanham Act is to denominate his product as a copy of plaintiffs); Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). As Del Monte conceded during oral argument,
holding that the third factor disfavored fair use because the defendant copied a qualitatively substantial portion of the original work even though the defendants copied only approximately 300 words out of the 200000 words in the plaintiffs work holding that a contract for an exclusive agency to market a product contains an implied promise to use all reasonable efforts to market the product holding that defendant who had copied plaintiffs perfume formula had a right to market it under defendants name because it identified to public plaintiffs product as competition holding district court had no authority to require plaintiffs to obtain courts permission to dismiss defendant who had not served answer or motion for summary judgment as plaintiffs had absolute right to dismissal without prejudice and thus court could not sanction plaintiffs for filing notice of voluntary dismissal rather than motion holding that defendant who had copied plaintiffs swath was not liable for reverse palming off where it represented to public that its swaths were interchangeable with those of plaintiff