Still, trade dress (and accusations of douchebaggery) still apply -- and, in a broader sense, Apple are still hypocrits for decrying "copying" while still doing it themselves. The exact nature of the copying is simply different.
Still, trade dress (and accusations of douchebaggery) still apply -- and, in a broader sense, Apple are still hypocrits for decrying "copying" while still doing it themselves. The exact nature of the copying is simply different.
Copying yes, but with the intention of confusing buyers, I don't think so.
Well, if they weren't intending to do it, then it was quite a happy accident. http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/27/samsung-tablet-returns-best-bu...
Thats it. That was the test. If you have some space at the bottom of the phone thats not part of the screen, go to jail and dont pass go.
Samsungs argument is that the space is functional, ie, serve a functional purpose, and thus make the bazel invalid as a trade dress for the iphone. Requirement for being granted trade dress is that it does not serve a utility or function outside of creating recognition in the consumer’s mind.
Take a stop sign and its color red. Can the color red become trade dress for signs? The answer is no, as the color serves a second purpose, which is that red is associated with danger/attention required information. Since the color now has a function, it can not be trade dress.