Patent Law

Duane Morris on Lapp Factors: Are We Clear? Crystal!

By Les Weinstein, Michael Young, John Leo Wagner, Eric van Ginkel, and Victoria Pynchon

Duane Morris reports today on the Third Circuit Decision Clarif[ying] Proper Use of Lapp Factors in Trade Dress Infringement Actions.

I leave the strictly legal analysis to my fellow IP legal bloggers.  See e.g. the 43(B)log's treatment of the denial of the preliminary injunction by the District Court here.  

My comment pertains to the last paragraph's modest conclusion that the new decision "provides brand owners with important guidance" in ordering their affairs.

That guidance?

1. store brands can 'get away' with a little more similarity than other defendants' products when they prominently display a well-known store-specific signature on their packages
2. but store-brands may not merely affix a tiny differentiating label to a copied national brand
3. "health-related" products such as the artificial sweeteners at issue can err on the side of similarity because customers "are assumed to exercise more care in their purchasing decisions than they otherwise might for low-priced products"
4. evidence of actual confusion from a "surgical strike" shopper was not representative of the typical shopper in light of of their brand indifference and the fast pace of their shopping.

Is This Guidance Sufficiently Certain to Recommend Litigation?

From a practical standpoint -- is there any other? -- any legal issue that requires fact-finding will likely be settled later (and far more expensively) than those that don't. 

Why? 

Because litigation makes sense only if:

1. you have far more resources than your opponent; or,
2. the matter is actually resolved at the preliminary injunction stage because the resulting commercial losses are too great to bear until trial; or,
3. the matter can truly be resolved by way of summary judgment motion, i.e., there are genuinely no  material facts nor any immaterial facts that pull at equity's heart-strings.  

Judges have hearts? 

Yes, indeedy.  In fact, if you look back over your long or short litigation career, you'll get the gestalt -- the cases you should have won on summary judgment but which you (unjustly) lost invariably contained some set of facts that:

1. made the requested judgment feel inequitable even though it would have been legally appropriate
2. made the trial court worry about reversal -- usually because the law or the facts were just too darn complicated
   • ever so brief aside:  at the close of one summary judgment argument in a nine-figure case, I asked the Judge denying my motion to provide the parties with his ruling on our evidentiary objections.  His response?  The wave of a hand at the wire cart containing several red welds of pleading files coupled with this remark -- "you can't expect me to rule on those objections."  Beat.  "There are just too many of them."  Voila -- justice! 
3. required more work to understand than the particular Judge before whom it was pending was prepared to do (cf. "too darn complicated")

But They Infringed My Trade Dress!!!!

Let's stick with artificial sweeteners here. 

The reason the "store brands" cost so much less than the national brands is, of course, promotion.  Advertising.  Print.  Television.  Internet.  Billboards.  Slogans. Jingles.  The whole Adman Magilla (plug here for Madmen from Nancy Franklin's ecstatic New Yorker review -- "it hits a deep place in you, like a straight-up Martini made of memory and desire.")

So really!  No one should feel sorry for a store brand trying to hitch a free ride on the back of the national brand's gazillion dollar ad campaign.  Shoot!  That's the kind of advantage taking that makes everyone's mouth go a little sour, right?

Trouble is, as far as jurors and judges go, there is no innocent and, more importantly, no flesh and blood person who's done any equity-sweating or competitor abusing.  Just the cold record; some high-paid expert witnesses; and, the usual line-up of corporate representatives.

There's simply no way to predict what a Court or jury or appellate tribunal is apt to do.  It's all so loosey goosey really.  This is not only not science -- it's not even social science.  It's a game of chance no matter how skilled and sophisticated the players.

Isn't this Just Another Commercial for Your Mediation Services, Ms. Pynchon?

Well, not entirely.  My friend and mentor Ken Cloke likes to say that mediation is a profession in search of its own suicide because we're always trying to teach people to just do this resolution thing -- strategic planning and negotiation -- by themselves.

Have I, for instance, said read 3-D Negotiation yet this year?  No?  Here's the amazon.com link.  Buy it today.  You don't even have to read the whole thing.  You can skim it.  Really!  It will be the best investment of your legal career since you first subscribed to Lexis or Westlaw.  

The recommendation below, for instance is a little harder than it sounds, but it's a whole lot easier and less risky than high-stakes IP litigation.  What is that recommendation?  

Learn the "art of letting them have your way."

At its best, letting them have your way means finding an agreement that meets your counterpart's real interests, as a way of meeting yours.  It means shaping how the other side sees the basic choice -- between yes and no -- so that the "yes" they choose for their reasons yields the deal you want for yours.

3-D Negotiation at 37.

Try it.  You'll like it!

Full post as published by IP ADR Blog on January 02, 2008 (boomark / email).