LoggerHead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 12 C 9033, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) (Darrah, J.).
Judge Darrah granted defendants summary judgment as to plaintiff Loggerhead’s product design-based and product packaging-based trade dress infringement in this intellectual property case related to LoggerHead’s Bionic Wrench.
Of particular note, the Court held the following with respect to the product claims:
- LoggerHead’s trade dress did not acquire secondary meaning based upon defendant’s alleged copying because there were no facts showing the alleged copying was done with an intent to confuse consumers.
- There was “some” evidence that the product design acquired secondary meaning through sales or press coverage.
- The Bionic Wrench product design was functional – as laid out in LoggerHead’s patents – and, therefore, not protectable as trade dress.
- Similarities between the products and evidence of alleged copying could evidence a likelihood of consumer confusion. But that was immaterial in light of the functional nature of the asserted trade dress.
With respect to the packaging claims, the Court held as follows:
- The marks were dissimilar. LoggerHead used LOGGERHEAD TOOLS and BIONIC WRENCH. Defendants used CRAFTSMEN and MAX AXESS.
- Loggerhead and defendants also used different colors, logos and taglines.