Federal Circuit reverses the grant of a preliminary injunction (based on utility patent and trade dress infringement) in a dispute between indoor "adventure parks":
Ledge Lounger v. Luxury Lounger - Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction against trade dress infringement. Defendant agreed to the entry of such an injunction, without conceding liability. Defendant redesigned the accused product. Plaintiff asked the court to hold the defendant in contempt, arguing that the new product violated the injunction.
Decision: No contempt because "there has been neither an adjudication nor an admission of infringement."
In a trade dress case, Polaroid argues that Fujifilm is estopped from arguing that its trade dress is functional because Fujifilm got a design patent on a nearly identical design:
Emson alleges that it has unregistered trade dress rights in "the colors black and red applied in combination to the surface of the device’s handle. In particular, the color black is applied to the surface of the handle body and the color red is applied to a generally ogive-shaped area along the top surface of the handle (the “Car Cane Trade Dress”)."
Apparently, in the underlying case, the Ninth Circuit stated that "there is no logical reason for...precise copying save an attempt to realize upon a secondary meaning that is in existence."
Apparently, in the underlying case, the Ninth Circuit stated that "there is no logical reason for the precise copying save an attempt to realize upon a secondary meaning that is in existence."
The many varieties of #fountainpens over the past 140 yrs is all the proof anyone needs to see that there is no valid reason for any company to infringe upon the #tradedress and #designs of another company. It is extremely unethical to enrich yourself by copying the work of those who made the investment and shouldered the market risk establishing their original products, and anyone who buys these #ripoffs or endorses them in any way, including by reviewing them, should be ashamed of themselves.
Wonderful Company v. Nut Cravings - Court grants motion to dismiss product-packaging trade dress infringement claims, concluding that the plaintiff has failed to plead a plausible claim of infringement (and failed to sufficiently allege nonfunctionality vis-à-vis the unregistered trade dress claim):
"Some candy companies evoke [a slice of watermelon] by using colors alone, making their candies red, white, and green. But the watermelon effect is significantly stronger if the red-white-and-green candy is shaped like a wedge. Because the tricolored shape is recognizable as watermelon flavored, the whole appearance is useful. So a candy-maker cannot block competitors from using the combined shape and colors...."
Functionality aside, though, does anyone seriously think there is a real likelihood of confusion here?
The normal arguments about post-sale confusion (which I'll confess I don't find particularly compelling in general) don't seem to apply with much force, if at all, to bagged candies like these.
PSA: To be "famous" for the purposes of federal antidilution law, the mark has to be "widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner."