Intellectual Property Law
Ask an Intellectual Property Lawyer. Get an Answer ASAP.
Unlikely he will sue over 27 orders.
That said, how much money are we talking about with regard to 27 orders.
I may have spoken too soon.
The federal claims arebrought pursuant to the Lanham Act, which provides protection against “trade dress”infringement and dilution. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) & 1125(c).
“Trade dress” is defined as “the design and appearance of a product together with the elements making up the overall image that serves to identify the product presented to the consumer.” Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., LLC, 259 F.3d 25, 37-38 (1st Cir. 2001). Trade-dress protection is intended to protect “that which identifies a product’s source.” I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir. 1998).
In order for trade-dress to be protected, a plaintiff must prove that the dress is, among other things, non-functional. Yankee Candle, 259 F.3d at 38.
A trade dress is considered functional “if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of an article.” TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 32 (2001).
Trade-Dress can also be protected by State Common Law.
Although the Federal trade-dress and State trade-dress claims are somewhat different, they both typically include the requirement that the claimed trade dress be non-functional.
So what do they have to prove for trade-dress infringement
lots of things
That the trade-dress is non functional
Trade dress is the total image of the product, including all of its identifying characteristics such as size, shape, package, and sales techniques, which make it distinguishable from other products in the market.
Thus there are three primary things to prove
In order succeed on a claim of trade dress infringement under Section 43(a), a plaintiff must prove: “1) that the trade dress in question is distinctive in the marketplace, thereby indicating the source of the good it dresses, 2) that the trade dress is primarily nonfunctional, and 3) that the trade dress of the competing good is confusingly similar.”Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 280 F.3d 619, 629(6th Cir. 2002).
Such can get expensive even in state court.
if the damages are low, risk of actual suit being filed is low.
If you have more questions, please ask.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).