Sad to say the CBP is right here: A product that looks too much like another can be a "counterfeit" under the Lanham Act even if the packaging makes it clear these products don't come from Apple.
The courts have ruled that product shapes can be registered as trademarks. Once so registered, copycat designs can qualify as "counterfeits"--again, even if the labeling is clear and non-deceptive.
This is yet another reason why product shapes shouldn't be registrable as trademarks.
Anyway, what I'd really like to know about this seizure is: Did Apple file an allegation against the OnePlus Buds with the CBP? (See generally cbp.gov/document/publi…) Or did the CBP seize them on its own initiative?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Federal Circuit reverses NDIL grant of a preliminary injunction in a "Schedule A" case, finding the court improperly analyzed the issue of design patent infringement: bit.ly/3Wh8ynI
I need to read this more deeply but, on first skim, it seems like the infringement expert may have been falling victim to the concept fallacy. The accused products just don't look the same as the claimed designs, even if they feature an "hourglass shape."
I do think that comparison art should be limited; it shouldn't be "anything goes." The question is where that limit should be. I think it should mirror the question of scope.
One problem, as @patentlyo notes, is strategic language use by patentees. Here, the claim is directed to a "heat-reflective material."
Williams-Sonoma sets up its design patent claims by illustrating its alleged commercial embodiments, then the actual claim, then the accused product. That's not the test.
It's not every day that I see a book about Civil War belt buckles cited as prior art in a design patent case (from @GRIPSIX v. Argali Outdoors): design-law.tumblr.com/post/671763534…
By the way, this is not how design patent invalidity works:
For design patents, you don't divide the design into elements and create Frankenart.
You have to find a single piece of prior art that looks "the same" (102) or "basically the same" (first step of 103) as the claimed design.
Morning trademark musing: There are two companies currently involved in a trademark and trade dress dispute. I buy the contested products from both of them.
The purported mark owner has messed up 50% of my orders and I just learned that while it sells gift sets, it doesn't provide wrapping, gift receipts, or gift messages.
The accused infringer has flawless execution when it comes to distribution & delivery. It provides gift options.