WIPIP 2019, Plenary (designs)

Whole Designs, Sarah BursteinWhat is a “design for a useful article”?  TLDR: it’s a whole article.  Egyptian Goddess said the infringement test has to be sameness of appearance. Must appear substantially the same to the ordinary observer.Worst design patent claim ever: Caffeinate Labs v. Vante: multitool shaped like a monkey; the accused design is not shaped like a monkey. (Withdrawn when D correctly filed a motion for sanctions.)  Richardson v. Stanley works: claimed & accused designs were hammer tools w/things in the same places but didn’t look the same.  We don’t have fragmented literal similarity as in ©; you have to look at the design as a whole.But: the whole what?  Three long-recognized types of designs.  A design for the shape of an article of manufacture, like a dryer ball shaped like a hedgehog.  A design for the surface ornamentation of an article.  Or a combination of both (grab bars…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

Related news:

  • WIPIP: Opening plenary WIPIP Plenary[Standard disclaimer: these are just my notes; I miss stuff or it’s about patents and I don’t necessarily get it; I also have to pick and choose from many attractive panels […]
  • WIPIP at BU session 2 Stacey Dogan and Wendy Gordon, Functionality Dogan: Project: IP protection for product design more generally; functionality is a key concept here, and on the copyright side separability. […]
  • WIPIP concurrent 3 (most of it) Annemarie Bridy, Fearless Girl Meets Charging Bull: Copyright and the Regulation of IntertextualityDiModica (who made Charging Bull) complained that Fearless Girl’s placement created an […]
  • AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that copyright protection in designs simply arises when they are original G-Star Elwood, a style of jeans that G-Star claims Cofemel to have copied in the background Portuguese proceedingsAt what conditions can a design be protected by copyright? Is it […]
  • WIPIP at BU session 5 Brad Abruzzi, Copyright and the Vagueness Doctrine A vague law is offensive because it provides inadequate notice; traps the risk-seeking and risk-neutral; delegates excessive enforcement […]
  • WIPIP at BU session 6 H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui, Copyright at "Common Law" Before 1710 Common law copyright has two historical meanings: right of first publication, and right to control further […]
  • WIPIP panel one: TM tarnishment and (c) [title fixed because I can't keep seasons straight]Suneal Bedi, Bad Brands: Experimental Studies in Trademark TarnishmentWhat is the reputation of a mark?  Working on PhD in marketing […]
  • WIPIP Concurrent 2 Nancy Kim, The License v. Sale Puzzle after Impressions v. LexmarkSales exhaust the patentee’s rights to any item regardless of what the contract says. But restrictions on licensees are […]
  • WIPIP at BU Laura A. Heymann, The Law of Reputation and the Interest of the Audience Running late, so missed the beginning; Heymann discussed various theories behind protection of reputation, […]
  • WIPIP at BU session 4 Katya Assaf, Magical Thinking in Trademark Law We're supposed to be rational, but in fact Westerners are just as likely to believe in magical thinking as members of supposedly less […]
This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply