Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Manufacturing. Co. v. S.S. Kresge Co.
United States Supreme Court
316 U.S. 203 (1942)
Goodwill is the intangible business advantage that comes with a good reputation.
Mishawaka Rubber and Woolen Manufacturing Company versus SS Kresge Company contains an early exploration of the notion of goodwill in the context of trademarks.
Mishawaka Rubber manufactured shoes with rubber heels that contained a distinctive red circular plug embedded in the center. Mishawaka had trademarked this red plug. It spent a good deal of money promoting the red plugs as a mark associated with a quality product.
Mishawaka didn't sell the heels separately, but only attached to its shoes.
Kresge sold rubber heels that also contained a red circular plug that strongly resembled Mishawaka's.
Kresge's heels were of a lower quality than Mishawaka's.
Mishawaka sued Kresge for trademark infringement.
It argued that customers mistakenly believed they were buying Mishawaka's heels and that the lower quality of Kresge heels was destroying the goodwill Mishawaka had built up in its product.
Though it saw no direct proof that any purchasers had been misled, the district court found it reasonably likely that some consumers had been deceived into purchasing Kresge Heels, believing they were Mishawakas.
It held that Kresge had infringed Mishawaka's trademark.
It ordered Kresge to pay Mishawaka profits it had made from sales to purchasers who were induced to buy Kresge products as a result of this infringement, reasoning that these were sales Mishawaka otherwise would have made.
On appeal, Mishawaka argued that this wasn't the correct method of determining profits it had made. The sixth circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/mishawaka-rubber-woolen-manufacturing-co-v-s-s-kresge-co
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/mishawaka-rubber-woolen-manufacturing-co-v-s-s-kresge-co
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Manufacturing. Co. v. S.S. Kresge Co.
United States Supreme Court
316 U.S. 203 (1942)
Goodwill is the intangible business advantage that comes with a good reputation.
Mishawaka Rubber and Woolen Manufacturing Company versus SS Kresge Company contains an early exploration of the notion of goodwill in the context of trademarks.
Mishawaka Rubber manufactured shoes with rubber heels that contained a distinctive red circular plug embedded in the center. Mishawaka had trademarked this red plug. It spent a good deal of money promoting the red plugs as a mark associated with a quality product.
Mishawaka didn't sell the heels separately, but only attached to its shoes.
Kresge sold rubber heels that also contained a red circular plug that strongly resembled Mishawaka's.
Kresge's heels were of a lower quality than Mishawaka's.
Mishawaka sued Kresge for trademark infringement.
It argued that customers mistakenly believed they were buying Mishawaka's heels and that the lower quality of Kresge heels was destroying the goodwill Mishawaka had built up in its product.
Though it saw no direct proof that any purchasers had been misled, the district court found it reasonably likely that some consumers had been deceived into purchasing Kresge Heels, believing they were Mishawakas.
It held that Kresge had infringed Mishawaka's trademark.
It ordered Kresge to pay Mishawaka profits it had made from sales to purchasers who were induced to buy Kresge products as a result of this infringement, reasoning that these were sales Mishawaka otherwise would have made.
On appeal, Mishawaka argued that this wasn't the correct method of determining profits it had made. The sixth circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/mishawaka-rubber-woolen-manufacturing-co-v-s-s-kresge-co
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/mishawaka-rubber-woolen-manufacturing-co-v-s-s-kresge-co
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
