|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT |
As a *customer*, I don't confuse a Toyota Camry with a Honda... whatever the
clone was. I know which dealership I walked into.
In the parking lot? Different answer. But in the parking lot, I'm not a
customer.
Does the customer know which store they walked into? Do I walk into some place
that sells Samsung phones and think that I walked into an Apple store? I really
doubt it.
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
But the Camry was not distinctive, and thus they probably didn't bother to
file for trade dress in the first place.
Ferrari is a much better example. They've successfully sued a number of kit
car providers for 'knock offs' body panel kits you hang on your Corvette or
Fiero to make them look very Ferrariesque.
Carroll Shelby also was successful for a number of years in the same
preventing Cobra clones, and/or getting royalties for them. However, many
years later, he ultimately lost at the appeal level as the essential Cobra
body came from AC, though IIRC the hood bumps, scoops and fender flares
were deemed protected.
But to think trade dress / trademark etc doesn't have teeth even in the most
ridiculous, never in a million year, could anyone ever confuse two products
situation --
Look to last year, where ironically, Ferrari were forced by Ford to change the
name of their F1 race car from the Ferrari F150 to the Ferrari F150th Itaila
because Ford 's F150 pickup truck! Those consumers might be confused
between the best selling US pickup and a $12 million race car that you can't
even buy.
Software patents and trade dress/design patents are completely different
animals, and it's pretty apparent that most on Groklaw don't how they work
or protect IP.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
