of the defendant’s product. The court held: We decline to so hold [that evidence of deliberate copying shifts the burden of proof on the issue of secondary meaning]. Competitors may intentionally copy product features for a variety of reasons. They may, for example, choose to copy wholly functional features that they perceive as lacking any secondary meaning because of those features’ intrinsic economic benefits. 826 F.2d at 844-45. Several other circuits have concurred in this analysis. See Thomas & Betts v. Panduit Corp., 65 F.3d 654, 663 (7th Cir.1995) (“Copying is only evidence of secondary meaning if the defendant’s intent in copying is to confuse customers and pass of his product as plaintiffs.”); Brooks Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 716 F.2d 854, 859-60 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>) Here, it is undisputed that Nowcom engaged in
holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applicable in fraud actions does not apply to the proof of misrepresentations under ors 743612 holding that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence holding that proof of intentional copying in the absence of additional evidence of actual deception does not eliminate the need for proof of secondary meaning holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence