456 U.S. 844 (1982)
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v.
Can a manufacturer of a generic drug be liable for contributory trademark infringement when pharmacists resell their products in a manner that may mislead consumers about the brand origin?
A manufacturer is liable for contributory trademark infringement if they intentionally induce third parties to infringe a trademark, or if they continue to supply their product to individuals whom they know or have reason to know are engaging in trademark infringement.
The Supreme Court held that a manufacturer is not liable for trademark infringement merely because their product is used to infringe a trademark by third parties, unless the manufacturer induces the infringement or continues to supply the product knowing it is being used to infringe.
For law students, Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories is critical in understanding the contributory trademark infringement doctrine, particularly where indirect liability is concerned. The case established that trademark holders bear the burden of demonstrating actual knowledge or active inducement by third parties to maintain manufacturer liability claims. It cemented a dual standard wherein mere similarities in product characteristics without evidence of intent or knowledge are insufficient to claim contributory infringement.