May 20, 2020
Authored and Edited by Kathryn R. Judson; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, No. 2019-1781 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dolgencorp holding that Lanard’s design patent, copyright, and trade dress infringement claims failed.
Lanard owns a copyright and design patent on its toy chalk holder that is designed to look like a pencil. Lanard originally began selling the Lanard Chalk Pencil to Dolgencorp and Toys “R” Us. A year later, Ja-Ru, Inc. designed a look-alike chalk holder using the Lanard Chalk Pencil as a reference. Lanard brought suit alleging, inter alia, copyright infringement, design patent infringement, and trade dress infringement. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted Dolgencorp’s motion.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected Lanard’s arguments and held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in Dolgencorp’s favor. Beginning with the design patent claim, the Court construed a number of features of the claimed design as being “functional.” The Court also noted that Lanard’s design patent was only distinct from the prior art with regard to its proportion and the size and shape of the tapered end. Turning to its comparison of the patented design and the Ja-Ru product, the Court thus noted that the design similarities stemmed from aspects of the claimed design that are either functional or well-established in the prior art. Therefore, the Court concluded that no reasonable fact finder could find infringement under the ordinary observer test.
In its copyright analysis, the Federal Circuit explained that Lanard was seeking copyright protection over “the idea of a pencil-shaped chalk holder,” but copyright protection did not protect “ideas.” The Court held that Lanard’s copyright was invalid and not infringed because Lanard’s product had an “intrinsic utilitarian function” and could not exist independently as a work of art entitled to copyright protection.
Additionally, the Court held that the accused product did not infringe Lanard’s trade dress because Lanard failed to provide adequate evidence to prove that consumers could associate the product with the company, as required for trade dress infringement. The Court also noted that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the Lanard Chalk Pencil acquired secondary meaning.
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.