Impax Lab. Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the ruling that certain patent claims for pharmaceutical formulations, intranasal administration devices or aqueous solutions of zolmitripatan are not valid. The court found that defendant failed to prove that the claims at issue would have been obvious over the prior art.
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.
(United States Supreme Court) - Reversed and remanded. WesternGeco owns a patent for a system to survey the ocean floor and they believed that a competing system owned by ION infringed on their patent. WesternGeco sued. The jury found ION liable and awarded WesternGeco damages including lost profit damages. ION argued that the lost profit damages was not allowed and the appellate court agreed with them. The US Supreme Court disagreed and reversed and remanded the decision stating that lost profits for a domestic patent was permissible under the Patent Act.
In Re: Wang
(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board which rejected certain patent claims as directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC section 101. Plaintiff sought to patent a different phonetic symbol system that mapped letters to sounds. Court of Appeals affirmed the rejection stating that a patent is available per section 101, if it is a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or an improvement thereof. Further, it must be in a physical or tangible form.
In Re: App of George W. Schlich v. Board Institute
(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from a decision to deny his petition for discovery under 28 USC section 1782, which allows a party t petition for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. Plaintiff sought certain materials to be used in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The district court held that under Intel Corp v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 US 241 that the material sought was irrelevant and would not be used by the EPO. The appellate court affirmed.
Sirona Dental v. Institut Starumann AG
(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board which held certain patent submittals unpatentable and denied plaintiff the opportunity to amend. Patent submittals relates to a method of drilling assistance for dental work and, the Board ruled, were based on previous patents. Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. Court of Appeals agreed that certain patent submittals were unpatentable, but vacated the denial of the motion to amend
FASTSHIP, LLC v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - This appeal is from a series of patent infringement cases against the US claiming that the Freedom-class ships infringe on certain patents owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the court of Federal Claims grant of the Government Motion for Summary Judgement and the damages calculations of FastShip, LLC v. US. (2017) 131 Fed Cl. 592. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of the summary judgement motion for the government and modified the damage award to plaintiff.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming in part and vacating in part the US Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeals Board inter partes review determination that a medical device company had not proven that the challenged patent claims were unpatentable in a suit relating to thoracic pedicle screws for scoliosis surgery.
Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a district court order denying a motion for attorney fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit with prejudice because attorney fees are only available in exceptional circumstances and the court decision was not an abuse of discretion.
PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board determination that patents relating to systems for performing marine seismic surveying were unpatentable because they made no error justifying the disturbance of their obviousness decisions.
Bodum USA, Inc. v. A Top New Casting Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the manufacturer of a coffeemaker infringed the unregistered trade dress of a competitor's widely lauded product by mimicking the overall appearance. Affirmed a jury verdict.
High Point Design, LLC v. LM Insurance Corp.
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that insurance companies had a duty to provide a defense to a footwear wholesaler that was being sued in an intellectual property case for offering for sale certain infringing slippers. The insurance policy covered advertising injuries, and advertising included offering for sale.
OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc. v. West Worldwide Services, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of liability under the Lanham Act for reverse passing off. At trial, a jury found that a manufacturer of industrial tires had arranged to obtain a competing manufacturer's tires with the labels removed and used the tires to solicit business from one of the competitor's customers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a judgment that these actions violated the Lanham Act, which prohibits conduct that would confuse consumers as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services. The panel's opinion also addressed other issues including trade dress validity.
Moldex-Metric, Inc. v. McKeon Products, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit for trademark infringement relating to foam earplugs in a specific bright green color used by the plaintiffs in their earplugs because the district court's conclusion that the green color mark was functional and therefore not protectable as trade dress was in error. The existence or nonexistence of alternative designs is probative of functionality or nonfunctionality and a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the color was functional remained.
Adidas America, Inc. v. Sketchers USA, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming in part and reversing in part a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sketchers from selling shoes that allegedly infringe and dilute Adidas's Stan Smith trade dress and three stripe mark, affirming that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction and reversing the portion issuing an injunction as to the Stan Smith trade dress, but reversing the portion relating to the three stripe mark because Adidas failed to establish the irreparable harm element of this particular claim.
Evans v. Building Materials Corp. of Am.
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a complaint alleging design-patent infringement under federal law as well as trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under federal and state law, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to stay the action pending arbitration based on the parties' agreement's arbitration provision, is affirmed where defendant's assertion that the arbitration provision covers the claims stated in the complaint is 'wholly groundless,' a standard that defendant accepts as applicable in this case.
Direct Technologies, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement and trade secret case arising out of a contract for plaintiff to produce a USB flash drive shaped like a 'PlumbBob' a gem-shaped icon from defendant's computer game, The Sims, the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is: 1) affirmed in part as to the trade secrets claim, although on different grounds. where plaintiff's contribution to the PlumbBob USB drive, a design for the flash drive’s removal from the PlumbBob object, did not derive independent economic value from not being generally known to the public; and 2) reversed in part as to the copyright infringement claim where the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the flash drive was not sufficiently original when compared to the Plumb Bob icon to qualify for copyright protection as a derivative work.
Millennium Laboratories, Inc. v. Ameritox, Ltd.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trade dress action, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where there is a genuine fact issue as to whether plaintiff's manner for presenting results in its urine test report was functional under the Lanham Act.
Apple v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - In an infringement case involving intellectual property related to the iPhone,a jury verdict finding that Samsung infringed Apple's design and utility patents and diluted Apple's trade dress is: 1) affirmed as to the verdict on the design patent infringement, the validity of two utility patent claims, and the damages for the design and utility patent infringements; and 2) reversed as to the jury's findings that the asserted trade dresses are protectable; and 3) vacated as to the damages awards against the Samsung productsthat were found liable for trade dress dilution.
Fair Wind Sailing Inc v. H. Dempster
(United States Third Circuit) - In this action alleging that defendants infringed upon plaintiff's trade dress in violation of the Lanham Act and unjustly enriched themselves by copying plaintiff's business, dismissal of plaintiff's trade dress and unjust enrichment claims and subsequent award of attorneys' fees to defendants is: 1) affirmed as to the trade dress and unjust enrichment claims, where plaintiff failed to adequately explain what "dress" it sought to protect, and plaintiff did not plead with sufficient particularity in what manner defendants had been unjustly enriched; and 2) vacated and remanded as to the award of attorneys' fees, where the award of reasonable fees would have been appropriate only to the extent that this was an "exceptional" case under section 35(a) of the Lanham Act.
McAirlaids, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action for trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) and Virginia common law, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff alleges that defendant used a similar dot pattern on its GoodNites bed mats as plaintiff used on plaintiff's absorbent products; 2) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual question as to whether their selection of a pixel pattern was a purely aesthetic choice among many alternatives; and thus, 3) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the functionality of its pixel pattern.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.
(United States Federal Circuit) - The district court's denial of plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction to enjoin defendants' infringement of several of plaintiff's design and utility patents, as well as defendants' dilution of plaintiff's iPhone trade dress is: 1) affirmed in part, as to the denial of injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's design patents and trade dress; but 2) vacated in part and remanded, as to the denial of injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's utility patents.
High Point Design LLC v. Buyer's Direct, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Judgment holding defendant's asserted design patent for slippers known as Snoozies, invalid on summary judgment and also dismissing defendant's trade dress claims with prejudice is: 1) reversed as to the grant of summary judgment of invalidity, where the district court made multiple errors in its obviousness and functionality analysis; and 2) vacated as to the dismissal of defendant's trade dress claims, and remanded for the Court to reconsider its decision denying defendant's request to amend the pleadings.
Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broet Je Automation USA Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - In action in which plaintiff asserted counts of patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the district court's ruling that the claims in suit are invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention related to the process for distributing rivets is: 1) reversed in part, as to the judgment of invalidity on best mode grounds; 2) affirmed in part, that the patent was not abandoned; and 3) remanded for determination of the remaining issues.
Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co.
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit for infringement of patents directed to a design for protective goggles used by military establishments, law enforcement agencies, hunters and shooters, district court's denial of plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is vacated and remanded where the district court erred in applying the Second Circuit's heightened standard of proof of likelihood of success on the merits, instead of the Federal Circuit standard for consideration of whether to impose such relief.
Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S.
(United States Fourth Circuit) - In litigation over competing lines of high-end cookware in which the appellees claimed trade dress infringement and unfair and deceptive trade practices, the district court's judgment in favor of the appellees is affirmed, where: 1) the appellant's failure to move pursuant to Rule 50(b) forfeited its challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert or in admitting his testimony and survey; 3) the appellant engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices as a matter of law; 4) the infringement was not innocent or unintentional, and the unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes covered it; and 5) the trial judge properly treated the award of profits as damages subject to trebling under state statute.
Secalt, S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit claiming that the defendant's traction hoists infringed the trade dress of the plaintiffs' traction hoist, the district court’s grant of summary judgment, its finding of exceptionality, and its award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act are affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress, but the district court's award of non-taxable costs and certain taxable costs is reversed.
Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Tech. LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement suit involving three competitor companies that create argon gas-enhanced electrosurgical products for electrosurgery, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) because the district court's construction of "low flow rate" is correct, and because there is no evidence that the accused probes infringe the asserted claims in the '745 patent, the district court's judgment of non-infringement is affirmed; 2) district court correctly granted summary judgment against plaintiff as to its trademark and trade dress claims based on the court's determination that the color blue is functional and has not acquired the requisite secondary meaning; 3) the district court properly granted summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims in favor of the plaintiffs as the "Sham litigation" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is not warranted in this case because the record demonstrates that plaintiff had probable cause to bring this patent enforcement litigation, and defendant failed to meet its burden of seeking discovery on its antitrust claims and failed to establish some genuine issue of material fact as to the other predatory acts is argues the district court ignored
Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, Article 4 of the parties' contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France - provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff's supply channels for four years.
Santa's Best Craft, LLC. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its insurer, arising from an underlying suit against the plaintiff over its marketing of Christmas lights for copying packaging design and for using false and deceptive language, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the insurer had, but did not breach, a duty to defend; 2) the district court properly declined to require the insurer to reimburse plaintiff's contract indemnitee's expenses; but 3) the case is remanded to resolve whether the insurer owes prejudgment interest on litigation expenses and reimbursement for the settlement expenses in the underlying suit.
Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage
(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an action alleging infringement of a star design that plaintiff claimed as a service mark, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the record evidence was replete with similar or identical five-pointed stars, both raised and set in circles, and used in similar manners, such that -- notwithstanding the residual evidence of the presumption of validity -- no reasonable jury could find that the star symbol was even a mere refinement of this commonly adopted and well-known form of ornamentation; and 2) plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue regarding the existence of secondary meaning with respect to the symbol. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiff had not yet had the opportunity to introduce evidence relating to its trade dress claims.
Shell Co. (Puerto Rico) Ltd. v. Los Frailes Serv. Station, Inc.
(United States First Circuit) - In Shell's suit against a former franchisee under the Petroleum Practices Marketing Act, district court's grant of Shell's motion for permanent injunction is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of a permanent injunction ordering an defendant to cease any use of Shell trademarks, trade dress, or color patterns, and to comply with the post-termination provisions of its franchise agreements with Shell are affirmed; 2) the portion of the injunction ordering and compelling defendant to allow Shell to continue in possession of the service station until the expiration of the lease in 2014 is vacated as Shell made no showing of irreparable harm that might justify an order giving it possession of the property for the full term of the lease; and 3) Shell's motion for summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims was properly granted.
Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC
(California Court of Appeal) - In plaintiff's suit against defendant for infringement of jewelry designs, trademarks and copyrights, trial court's decision denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as the filing of a lawsuit in a foreign country is not protected activity under the United States or California Constitutions as to implicate the statute.
Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Ent'mt. Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement action, judgment as a matter of law for defendant on copyright and trade dress infringement claims is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not timely move for judgment as a matter of law, but the time limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is not jurisdictional; and 2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had access to plaintiff's copyrighted works or that plaintiff's trade dress had acquired secondary meaning.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. King Mtn. Tobacco Co.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement action based on allegedly infringing cigarette packaging being sold on the Internet, an Indian reservation and elsewhere, the District Court's order staying the action in favor of proceedings before a tribal court is reversed where the tribal court did not have colorable jurisdiction over a nonmember's claims for trademark infringement on the Internet and beyond the Indian reservation.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. King Mtn. Tobacco Co.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement action based on allegedly infringing cigarette packaging being sold on the Internet, an Indian reservation and elsewhere, the District Court's order staying the action in favor of proceedings before a tribal court is reversed where the tribal court did not have colorable jurisdiction over a nonmember's claims for trademark infringement on the Internet and beyond the Indian reservation. (Amended opinion)
Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees. (Revised opinion)
Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees.
E.S.S. Entm't 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by the operator of a strip club in Los Angeles against the producer of a video game in the "Grand Theft Auto" series claiming, inter alia, that the game's depiction of a strip club called the "Pig Pen" infringed its trademark and trade dress associated with the "Play Pen", summary judgment for defendant-game producer is affirmed where: 1) modification of plaintiff's trademark was not explicitly misleading and was thus protected by the First Amendment; and 2) the First Amendment defense applies equally to plaintiff's state law claims as to its Lanham Act claim.
UT Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. and Research
(United States Tenth Circuit) - In an action claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) trademark infringement and unfair competition claims failed as plaintiff did not show that "Utah Lighthouse" was protectable, that defendant's use was in connection with any goods or services, and that defendant was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of goods sold on its online bookstore; 2) defendant lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of plaintiff's trademark in several domain names under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA); and 3) defendant's website met safe harbor conditions of the ACPA since it was a parody.
McNeil Nutritionals, Inc. v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC
(United States Third Circuit) - In a trade dress infringement action brought by the marketer of the artificial sweetener Splenda against defendants, who package and distribute sucralose as store brands to a number of retail grocery chains, alleging their product packaging is confusingly similar to Splenda's, denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to certain boxes and bags where plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the third element of trade dress infringement, as there was a likelihood of confusion between those products' trade dresses and the analogous Splenda trade dress.
General Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC
(United States Tenth Circuit) - In trademark dispute over steel "body kits" designed to make a truck look like a military-style vehicle, denial of plaintiff GM's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that GM failed to make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits that the "body kits" infringe upon and dilute GM's trade dress rights in its Hummer line of vehicles.
Optimum Techs., Inc. v. Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc.
(United States Eleventh Circuit) - In dispute arising out of distributorship agreement and competing adhesive products for floor coverings, judgment for defendants is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in granting: 1) partial summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition; 2) summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claims of breach of confidential relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation; and 3) granting defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's trademark and unfair competition claims, due to a lack of evidence establishing plaintiff's damages.
Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Int'l Ltd.
(California Court of Appeal) - In suit alleging dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising regarding a kitchen device known as the "Tartmaster," order granting directed verdict for defendants on trade dress claims, and finding for defendants on other claims are affirmed as there was no error or abuse of discretion.
Hansen Beverage Co. v. Nat'l Beverage Corp.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from infringing upon the trade dress of Hansen Beverage Company's line of "Monster" energy drinks with defendant's line of "Freek" energy drinks is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, as a finding of a likelihood of confusion was clearly erroneous.
ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendants on claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related false advertising is reversed in part pending response of the New York Court of Appeals to the following certified questions: 1) Does New York common law permit the owner of a famous mark or trade dress to assert property rights therein by virtue of the owner's prior use of the mark or dress in a foreign country?; and 2) If so, how famous must a foreign mark be to permit a foreign mark owner to bring a claim for unfair competition?
Audi AG v. D'Amato
(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a case arising from defendant's use of the domain name www.audisport.com to sell goods and merchandise displaying Audi's name and trademarks, summary judgment, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys' fees to Audi on trademark, trade dress, and AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) claims are affirmed where: 1) there was a likelihood of confusion for purposes of trademark infringement, and defenses to the claim including laches, consent, and fair use, failed; 2) trademark dilution was proven; 3) a finding that defendant violated the ACPA was proper; 4) injunctive relief was warranted; and 5) given his bad faith use of counterfeit marks, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a).
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Lanard Toys, Inc.
(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a trademark and trade dress infringement suit filed against a toy company by GMC involving a series of toy vehicles resembling GMC's Hummer, summary judgment for GMC is affirmed where: 1) despite the district court's failure to adequately discuss the Frisch factors, summary judgment was appropriate on the trademark infringement claim due to the weight of the factors in favor of a finding a likelihood of confusion; 2) GMC established that there were no material issues of fact as to any of the three elements of trade dress infringement; and 3) denial of summary judgment on laches and estoppel defenses was proper.
HI Ltd. P'ship v. Winghouse of Fla., Inc.
(United States Eleventh Circuit) - Judgment against plaintiffs on their claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress dilution, and unjust enrichment, and judgment for one counter-claimant that a settlement agreement barred plaintiffs from bringing the present suit, are affirmed, as plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law. Where plaintiffs failed to file a postverdict motion regarding the settlement, they cannot raise it on appeal.
In re Slokevage
(United States Federal Circuit) - A decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office sustaining a refusal of an examiner to register a trade dress mark for clothing is affirmed where substantial evidence supported a finding that the trade dress was product design and that the trade dress was not unitary.
Shelby v. Superformance Int'l, Inc.
(United States First Circuit) - Appeal from a partial summary judgment grant for defendant is dismissed in a trademark and trade-dress case involving a car manufacturer and the manufacturer of replica vehicles where plaintiff's appeal was moot.