Share this page!

Sarah Burstein Profile picture
Twitter logo
Oct 28 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Issued this week to Shenzhen Zewei Network Technology Co., Ltd—D968,029, for a design for a “Makeup Practice Tool”: bit.ly/3sCUoiR #DesignPatents A rectangular plate-like item with two heavy-lidded eyes, no
This one was issued to a different patentee this week: A rectangular plate-like item with two heavy-lidded eyes, no
When I was flipping through this week's patents, I assumed these were different versions of the same design filed by the same applicant. I was wrong: Screenshot of the front page of both patents, D968,028 (issu
I just pulled the file wrapper of the later-filed app (patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/2…) and nope, nary a mention of the first (let alone any rejections): List of documents and transactions for app 29/864,345, showi

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Sarah Burstein

Sarah Burstein Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @design_law

Sarah Burstein Profile picture
Oct 28
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 Chart annexed to the court'...
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."
This part, though, concerns me: Page 13-14 of the court's d...
Read 15 tweets
Sarah Burstein Profile picture
Sep 3
Great post on a really interesting and important case. I'll share a few additional thoughts:
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." Top of the cover page of U.S. D657,093, showing the title as
Read 12 tweets
Sarah Burstein Profile picture
Dec 30, 2021
.@WilliamsSonoma (@westelm) accuses @Wayfair of infringing various design patents, engaging in false advertising, and violating both Massachusetts and California unfair competition laws: design-law.tumblr.com/post/671760508…
As others have pointed out, there may be some prior art issues here:
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.
Read 9 tweets
Sarah Burstein Profile picture
Dec 29, 2021
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.

See generally: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Read 4 tweets
Sarah Burstein Profile picture
Sep 14, 2020
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.
Read 8 tweets
Sarah Burstein Profile picture
Dec 17, 2019
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.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

Email the whole thread instead of just a link!

Separate emails with commas

:(