|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
"... then having a very visibly distinctive, non-functional-
impacting differentiator would have been advisable."
Wouldn't you think that a big SAMSUNG logo across the front
is considered "a very visibly distinctive, non-functional-
impacting differentiator"?
"If a non-label is a distinctive "feature", is the absence
of a label a protected design element, if the first design,
market leader, and heaviest advertiser prominently shows
their product's lack of label?"
I think this question hits the nail on the head. Basically,
can you protect a design that lacks ANY ornamentation when
the definition of definiton of trade dress and design
patents refer to ornamentation all over it. Is the lack of
ornamentation an ornamentation by itself. And isn't that too
generic for protection?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
If it's potentially a lost sale, as you say (which can be contested), it should
be at first presumed to be as a result of true, unproblematic (in its ultimate
sense a theoretic construct, I admit) competition.
Anything beyond that brings us to conjecture, and in front of a judge.
Question: are 'watered-down sales' because of competiton equal to 'lost sales'?
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|