Z Produx Inc v. Make-Up Art Cosmetics Inc
Filing
46
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 35 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 11/5/2013. (lc).
1
2
O
3
4
5
NO JS-6
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Z PRODUX, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
MAKE-UP ART COSMETICS, INC.,
15
16
Defendant.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 13-00734 DDP (RZx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[DKT No. 35]
17
18
Before the court is Make-Up Art Cosmetic, Inc.’s (“MAC”)
The motion is fully briefed.1
Having
19
Motion for Summary Judgment.
20
considered the parties’ submissions and heard oral argument, the
21
court now adopts the follow order.
22
23
24
I.
Background
Z Produx, Inc. (“Z Produx”) and MAC are competitors in the
25
arena of cosmetics accessories. This case centers on MAC’s alleged
26
infringement of a design patent held by Z Produx for a makeup
27
palette.
28
1
The court allowed Z Produx, Inc. to file a surreply.
1
Zena Shteysel, the president of Z Produx, is the named
2
inventor of U.S. Patent No. 642,743 (“the ‘743 patent”), a design
3
patent for a cosmetics holder. (See Declaration of Thomas Mahlum in
4
Support of Motion, Ex. A.) Shteysel applied for the design patent
5
on April 14, 2010 and it was issued August 2, 2011. (Id.) Shteysel
6
subsequently assigned the patent to Z Produx on May 17, 2012. (Id.,
7
Ex. B.) The patent includes a single claim for “[t]he ornamental
8
design for the cosmetic holder, as shown and described.” (Id., Ex.
9
A at 6.) The patent includes 14 figures depicting, from various
10
perspectives, a cosmetic holder with a clear top and an empty base.
11
(Id. at 6-12) As discussed further below, the design depicted has a
12
“book-like” appearance, with a flat spine and sides that extend
13
slightly beyond the middle part of the device. (Id.) It has a
14
relatively wide rim framing the window to the compartment. (Id.)
15
Z Produx markets the “Z Palette,” a cosmetics palette that
16
resembles the ‘743 design patent and includes the text “Pat.
17
D642,743" on the bottom of the device. (See Id., Ex. 10, 73; Ex.
18
Z.) The products sold by Z Produx consist only of the Z Palette and
19
two types of related accessories (metal pans and metal stickers).
20
(Id., Ex. C (Deposition of Zena Shteysel at 8:17-10:23).)
21
On April 14, 2010, the same day on which Shteysel applied for
22
the design patent, Shteysel also applied for a utility patent for a
23
cosmetics holder. (Id., Ex. K. at 180, Patent Application No. 12-
24
760029.) The application claimed, among other things, a cosmetics
25
holder including a metal base made of magnetized metal, a recess
26
for receiving metal makeup containers, and a top frame “defin[ing]
27
a window for viewing the makeup containers that are supported on
28
the magnetic base, when the cover assembly is closed.” (Id. at
2
1
188.) Each of the application’s five claims were rejected by the
2
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as anticipated by existing
3
patents. (Id. at 222-226.) The claim asserting a framed window for
4
viewing makeup containers while the cover assembly is closed was
5
rejected as obvious in view of the Liden patent, U.S. Patent No.
6
D597256, which has been assigned to Defendant MAC. (Id. at 224; MSJ
7
at 8.)
8
9
MAC markets, among other products, a cosmetic palette called
the MAC Pro Palette Large/Single (“MAC Palette”). (Complaint, DKT.
10
No. 1 ¶ 11.) Like the Z Palette, the MAC Palette consists of an
11
empty base container with clear window top. (See Mahlum Decl. Ex.
12
AA.) However, as discussed below, unlike the Z Palette, the MAC
13
Palette has edges that are flush with one another, a triangle-
14
shaped hinge, and a relatively narrow rim framing the window. (See
15
Id., Exs. M, N, and AA.)
16
17
Z Produx alleges that MAC’s sale of the MAC Palette infringes
its ‘743 design patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 27l(a).
18
19
II.
20
Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings,
Legal Standard
21
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
22
together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no
23
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
24
to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party
25
seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the
26
court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions
27
of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the
28
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v.
3
1
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). All reasonable inferences from
2
the evidence must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. See
3
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242 (1986). If the
4
moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it is
5
entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that “there is
6
an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.”
7
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
8
9
Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to
the nonmoving party opposing the motion, who must “set forth
10
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
11
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Summary judgment is warranted if a party
12
“fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of
13
an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party
14
will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
15
A genuine issue exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable
16
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” and material
17
facts are those “that might affect the outcome of the suit under
18
the governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. There is no genuine
19
issue of fact “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a
20
rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Matsushita
21
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
22
It is not the court's task “to scour the record in search of a
23
genuine issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1278
24
(9th Cir.1996). Counsel has an obligation to lay out their support
25
clearly. Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031
26
(9th Cir.2001). The court “need not examine the entire file for
27
evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the evidence
28
4
1
is not set forth in the opposition papers with adequate references
2
so that it could conveniently be found.” Id.
3
4
III. Discussion and Analysis
5
A. Validity of Patent
6
“A patent is presumed to be valid, and this presumption can
7
only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.”
8
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368,
9
1374 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). One basis on which a
10
patent may be proved invalid is evidence that the invention was “in
11
public use” more than one year prior to the date of filing an
12
application. 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2010). Prior public use may serve to
13
invalidate a design patent. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 1581-82
14
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
15
MAC argues that the ‘743 patent is invalid because the Z
16
Palette design was in public use more than a year before the ‘743
17
patent application was filed. (MSJ at 24.)
18
‘743 design was depicted in a photograph of the Z Palette that was
19
included in a trademark application filed by Z Produx on February
20
12, 2009, more than a year before Shteysel filed an application for
21
the ‘743 design patent on April 14, 2010. (Id.; Mahlum Decl., Ex
22
A.) MAC alleges that the photograph was posted on the United States
23
Patent and Trademark Office website on February 12, 2009 and was
24
made available to the public upon request in print form. (MSJ at
25
24, citing Mahlum Decl., Ex G.) MAC asserts that these alleged
26
facts demonstrate that the patent is invalid.
27
28
MAC alleges that the
Having considered the evidence before it, the court finds that
there is no basis for finding the ‘743 patent invalid. Even
5
1
assuming the photograph was publicly available on the date MAC
2
asserts, a contention Z Produx disputes, (Z Produx’s Surreply at 1-
3
3), the disclosure was not sufficient to anticipate and thereby
4
invalidate the ‘743 patent.
5
For a prior art disclosure to be anticipatory, it must be
6
“‘enabling’ - i.e., it must be sufficient to permit a person having
7
ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.” SmithKline
8
Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
9
2005). “Pictures and drawings may be sufficiently enabling to put
10
the public in the possession of the article pictured. Therefore,
11
such an enabling picture may be used to reject claims to the
12
article. However, the picture must show all the claimed structural
13
features and how they are put together.’ U.S. Patent and Trademark
14
Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure,
15
Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)).
16
§ 2102.04 (citing
The Z Produx trademark application included one picture of the
17
Z Palette photographed from above. (See Mahlum Decl., Ex G.) The
18
device’s sides, edges, and contours are not visible. (Id.) The
19
photograph does not reveal numerous elements of the design which
20
were later reflected in the figures included in the ‘743 design
21
patent. Indeed, with the exception of the width of the palette’s
22
rims, none of the elements included in the construction of the ‘743
23
patent proposed by MAC are apparent in the photograph. (See Reply
24
at 3, citing MSJ, Ex. A; Mahlum Decl., Ex. Y.) These elements
25
include a “lip” extending past the edged of the cosmetic holder and
26
the flat spine along the back of the case. (Id.) (MAC’s proposed
27
construction is discussed further in the following subsection.)
28
Because the photograph does not contain sufficient detail to
6
1
constitute invalidating prior art for the ‘743 design patent, the
2
court must reject MAC’s contention that the patent is invalid.
3
B.
Patent Infringement
4
i.
Claim Construction
5
To determine whether a design patent is infringed, the court
6
must first construe the claim to the design, where appropriate, and
7
then compare it to the design of the accused device. OddzOn
8
Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1404-05 (Fed.
9
Cir. 1997) (citing
10
Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d 1571,
1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
11
“A design patent protects only the novel, ornamental features
12
of the patented design,” not its functional elements. Id; see also
13
Lee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 838 F.2d 1186, 1188-91 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
14
(“[I]t is the non-functional, design aspects that are pertinent to
15
determinations of infringements. ... A device that copies the
16
utilitarian or functional features of a patented design is not an
17
infringement. ... [While] infringement can be found for designs
18
that are not identical to the patented design, such designs must be
19
equivalent in their ornamental, not functional, aspects.”); L.A.
20
Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123
21
(Fed.Cir.1993) (“The elements of the design may indeed serve a
22
utilitarian purpose, but it is the ornamental aspect that is the
23
basis of the design patent.”) Where a design is found to include
24
both functional and ornamental features, the court must “factor[]
25
out” the functional aspects of the design for the purposes of claim
26
construction. Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288,
27
1293 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
28
7
1
Critical to the instant case is whether two aspects of the
2
palette depicted in the ‘743 patent--the clear top and empty
3
compartment--are ornamental and therefore protected or, instead,
4
functional and therefore unprotected. (See MJS at 20-24; Opp. at 8-
5
11.) As discussed further below, it is these elements that are the
6
subject of Z Produx’s infringement action. A design is deemed to be
7
functional “when the appearance of the claimed design is dictated
8
by the use or purpose of the article.” L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1117
9
(internal citation and question marks omitted).
10
MAC asserts that the clear top and empty base are analogous to
11
design elements found functional in OddzOn. There, the Federal
12
Circuit construed a design patent covering a foam football with a
13
tail and fin structure. 122 F.3d at 1405. The court found that the
14
tail and fin structure was functional rather than ornamental, and
15
therefore unprotected, because those features served the purpose of
16
enabling the football to be thrown further than a traditional foam
17
football. Id. MAC argues that, like the tail and fin structure, the
18
clear top and empty compartment depicted in the ‘743 patent are
19
designed to serve specific purposes, namely allowing a user to see
20
the contents of her palette without opening it and to customize the
21
palette’s contents. (MSJ at 23.) The court agrees that the analogy
22
to OddzOn is apt.
23
Z Produx argues that the clear top and empty compartment are
24
not dictated by design on the grounds that MAC “had plenty of
25
options when it came to alternative designs.” (Opp. at 9.) It
26
argues that the palette merely “serves the purpose of holding
27
cosmetics” and points to various other cosmetic palettes that also
28
8
1
hold cosmetics but do not include the same clear window and empty
2
base features. (Id. at 9-10.)
3
Z Produx’s argument is unavailing because it mistakenly
4
assumes that it is the functionality of the device as a whole,
5
rather than the functionality of the elements at issue, that
6
matters for the construction of a design patent. Indeed, in the
7
course of finding that the tail and fin structure on the foam
8
football in OddzOn were functional, the Federal Circuit
9
specifically rejected the approach Z Produx now asks the court to
10
adopt:
11
OddzOn argues that the shape of a football with an arrow-like
12
tail is an ornamental feature because “it is not required for
13
a tossing ball.” While OddzOn correctly states that there are
14
many ways of designing “tossing balls,” it is undisputed that
15
the ball in question is specifically designed to be thrown
16
like a football, yet travel farther than a traditional foam
17
football. It is the football shape combined with fins on a
18
tail that give the design these functional qualities. The tail
19
and fins on OddzOn's design add stability in the same manner
20
as do the tail and fins found on darts or rockets. They are no
21
less functional simply because “tossing balls” can be designed
22
without them.
23
122 F.3d 1406. The court went on to explain that the functional
24
characteristics limit the scope of the protected subject matter.
25
Id. The reasoning in OddzOn is controlling for the instant case.
26
Just as a tail and fins are not necessary to design a “tossing
27
ball,” a clear cover and empty base are not necessary to design a
28
cosmetics pallette. Yet in both cases the additional elements bring
9
1
added functionality to the product, rendering them functional,
2
rather than ornamental, features.
3
Indeed, Z Produx has itself emphasized the functionality of
4
the features at issue. In explaining why consumers like the Z
5
Palette, Shteysel pointed to the functionality of the clear cover
6
and empty base, stating: “[Customers] like the window and that you
7
can see through it.
8
want so you can fit any size product, any brand, all in one
9
palette, interchangeable.” (Deposition of Zena Shteysel in Support
They like that you can customize it anyway you
10
of Opposition at 94.)2 (See also Shteysel Dep. at 103, 105, 109,
11
110.)
12
Moreover, the clear cover and empty base appear to be
13
essential for the functionality that these elements offer. As MAC
14
points out, there appears to be no other way to enable a user to
15
view the contents of her palette without opening it but to make the
16
cover see-through or to enable the customization of the palette’s
17
contents without leaving the compartment empty. (Reply at 10.)
18
These considerations support a finding that the clear top and empty
19
base are “dictated by the use or purpose of the article,” 988 F.2d
20
at 1117, and are therefore functional rather than ornamental.
21
22
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
The court gives little weight to subsequent assertions, made
by Ms. Shteysel in a declaration without assertions of factual
support, that the clear cover and empty compartment serve
aesthetic functions of making the palette look “more visually
appealing” and “uncluttered.” (DKT No. 38, Ex. 12, at ¶¶ 9-10. “A
conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any
supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of
material fact.” Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Publ'g Clearing House,
Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Fed. Trade Comm'n
v. Publ'g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.
1997)).
10
1
The finding that the clear window and empty base are
2
functional rather than ornamental is further supported by the fact
3
these features appear to be protected by existing utility patents.
4
As discussed above, at the time that Shteysel applied for what
5
became the ‘743 design patent, she filed an unsuccessful
6
application for a utility patent.
7
cosmetic holder with, among other elements, a “frame in order to
8
define a window for viewing the makeup containers.” (Mahlum Decl.,
9
Ex. K at 188.) The patent office rejected the window claim as
The application claimed a
10
obvious in view of the Liden utility patent (Patent No. D597256),
11
which claimed a top frame with “a window for viewing the makeup
12
containers when the cover is in a closed position.” (Id. at 224-
13
25.) As noted, the Liden utility patent, which looks very similar
14
to the ‘743 design patent, has been assigned to MAC. (MSJ at 8.)
15
The patent office likewise rejected the other four claims in
16
Shteysel’s utility patent application, which described a cosmetic
17
holder with a magnetic base with a recess for receiving metal
18
makeup containers, in light of the Jimbo patent (Patent No.
19
5005697). (Id. at 222-24.) The existence of these prior utility
20
patents covering the elements at issue further indicate that the
21
clear top and empty base elements are functional.
22
In sum, the facts in evidence clearly demonstrate that the
23
clear cover and empty base are functional, not ornamental, and thus
24
are not protected under the ‘743 design patent and may not form the
25
basis for an infringement action. Having reached this conclusion,
26
the court must “factor out” the clear window and empty base
27
elements for the purposes of claim construction. See Richardson,
28
597 F.3d at 1293.
11
1
The court next must examine what remaining relevant design
2
features are ornamental and construe the claimed design
3
accordingly. MAC proposes the following construction of the ‘743
4
patent design for the purposes of its motion:
5
The ‘743 claims the ornamental features of a cosmetic holder
6
design that includes a “lip” extending past the edge of the
7
cosmetic holder, with a flat or flushed spine or hinge along
8
the back of the case, and with the overall proportions
9
depicted in its drawings.
10
11
(Reply at 3, citing MSJ, Ex. A; Mahlum Decl., Ex Y.)
Z Produx urges the court to refrain from providing any
12
description of the elements of the claimed design. Borrowing
13
language from the ‘743 design patent (which contains no verbal
14
description of the patented design), it asks the court to adopt the
15
construction: “an ornamental design for a cosmetics palette as
16
shown in Figure 1.”
17
Produx relies on Federal Circuit authority cautioning trial courts
18
to avoid excessive reliance on a detailed verbal description of a
19
patent infringement. Id. (citing Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa,
20
Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). However, neither
21
Egyptian Goddess nor any other case of which this court is aware
22
has articulated the position that courts must refrain from any
23
verbal description of the elements whatsoever. Indeed, the Federal
24
Circuit specifically rejected this position in Richardson, raising
25
the question of “how a court could effectively construe design
26
claims, where necessary, in a way other than by describing the
27
features showing the drawings.” 597 F.3d at 1293.
28
(Opp. at 8.) In advancing this position, Z
As discussed further below, the court takes the figures
12
1
included in the ‘743 design patent as its touchstones for its
2
infringement analysis. With that in mind, however, the court finds
3
it necessary to provide a brief verbal description of the relevant
4
claimed ornamental elements of the ‘743 design. It further finds,
5
based on its own careful review of the ‘743 patent, that MAC’s
6
proposed characterization of the design is fair and accurate.
7
therefore adopts that description for the purposes of its
8
infringement analysis.
It
9
10
11
ii.
Infringement
Having construed the scope and relevant meaning of the ‘743
12
claim, the court must now compare the claim to the accused design
13
to determine whether there has been any infringement. See Elmer v.
14
ICC Fabricating, 67 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A design
15
patent is infringed if the patented design, or any colorable
16
imitation thereof, is applied without authorization to any article
17
of manufacture for the purposes of sale. 35 U.S.C. § 289; Goodyear
18
Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co., 162 F.3d 1113,
19
1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To determine if an infringement has
20
occurred, the court applies the “ordinary observer test,” whereby
21
the court must determine “whether an ordinary observer, familiar
22
with the prior art and designs, would be deceived into believing
23
that the accused product is the same as the patented design.”
24
Crocs,598 F.3d 1303. The focus of the analysis is the “overall
25
impression of the claimed ornamental features” rather than “small
26
differences in isolation.” Id. at 1303-04.
27
28
In the present case, the court finds that there is no triable
question as to whether the MAC Palette infringes the claimable
13
1
ornamental elements of the ‘743 design. Z Produx has pointed to
2
only two elements of the ‘743 design which it alleges are infringed
3
by the MAC Palette: (1) the clear cover and (2) the empty
4
See, e.g. (Mahlum Decl., Ex. S at Interrog. Resp. No. 10
5
(describing the claimed ornamental features in MAC accused products
6
as “contain[ing] a clear window and also featur[ing] an open empty
7
base design, just like the Z Palette”) and Nos. 3 and 4 (describing
8
ornamental design elements of the ‘743 patent as “a clear window,
9
empty base, and … rectangular and square designs”); Shteysel Decl.
10
(testifying that that MAC Palette “looks like mine, and it has the
11
same features, clear window, empty base”). However, as discussed in
12
the preceding section, because these features are functional, they
13
are not entitled to protection under the ‘743 design patent and
14
must be factored out for the purposes of infringement analysis.
15
Thus, Z Produx has failed to point to any claimable design aspects
16
of ‘743 that are infringed by the MAC Palette.
17
base.
Moreover, a comparison of the ‘743 design with the MAC Palette
18
reveals that, once the clear cover and empty base elements are
19
factored out, the designs bear little resemblance. MAC has pointed
20
to several areas which the court agrees bear consideration.
21
First, the MAC Palette has an overall slimmer look than the
22
‘743 patent and its Z Palette embodiment, owing to the designs’
23
differing proportions. MAC notes, and Z Produx does not contest,
24
that the window pane in the ‘743 design makes up 67% of the square
25
inches of the lid, with the opaque rim making up the remaining 33%.
26
(Oct. 7, 2013 Mahlum Decl. ¶ 3.) Similarly, the window pane of the
27
Z Palette makes up 61% of the square inches of the lid, with 39%
28
made up by the opaque rim. (Mahlum Decl. ¶ 4.) By contrast, the
14
1
window pane of the MAC Palette makes up a substantially greater 84%
2
of the lid, as compared to 16.2% made up by the rim. (Id. ¶ 5.) The
3
differing proportions make the products clearly distinguishable
4
upon first glance.
5
Second, the ‘743 patent claims a cosmetic holder with a lip
6
that extends beyond the edge of the cosmetic holder, giving the
7
design a book-like appearance. (See id., Ex. A, Figs. 1, 4, 7, 8,
8
11.) The lip is also present in the Z Palette. (See id., Ex. 9.) By
9
contrast, the MAC Palette has edges that are flush.
10
Third, the ‘743 patent claims a design with two seams or
11
ridges along each side, in addition to the one where the case
12
separates, contributing further to the design’s book-like
13
appearance. (See id., Ex. A, Figs. 1, 4, 7, 8, 11.) The MAC
14
Pallete, contrastingly, has no additional seams.
15
Fourth, the ‘743 design has a hinge that is flush with the
16
cosmetic case, resembling the binder of a book. (See id., Ex. A,
17
Figs. 4, 5.)
18
triangular raised hinge. (Mahlum Decl., Ex. M.)
19
By contrast, the MAC Palette has a distinctive
Z Produx urges that the court not consider such features as
20
the “individual corners, lips, seams, spine, and attributes” of the
21
products. (Opp. at 12.) Z Produx argues that consideration of such
22
elements is impermissible in light of the Federal Circuit’s
23
abandonment of the “point of novelty” test. (Opp. at 12.) Under
24
this now discarded test, in order to find infringement, after
25
comparing the items through the eyes of an ordinary observer
26
whereby, the court was required to attribute the similarity to
27
novelty that distinguishes the patented device from prior art. See
28
Egyptian Goddess at 543 F.3d at 676-77. However, the court does not
15
1
consider such design elements under the “point of novelty” test,
2
but instead refers to these elements solely in the course of
3
explaining that--once unclaimable features are factored out--an
4
ordinary observer could not confuse the two products.
5
Z Produx has submitted quotations from online discussion
6
forums which it asserts show that consumers are confused by the
7
similarity between the Z Palette and the MAC Palette. (See
8
Opposition at 17-18; Declaration of Robert Katz in Support of
9
Opposition, Exs. 7, 6, 7, 8, 9.) However, leaving aside the
10
question of whether the evidence is admissible, the evidence does
11
not create a triable issue because none of the materials presented
12
tend to show that consumers perceived the MAC Palette as similar to
13
the Z Pallette because of shared ornamental features that are
14
protected by the ‘743 design patent, rather than because of the
15
shared clear cover and empty base, which are not protected by the
16
patent. See OdzzOn at 1406 (“Because the accused products are
17
clearly similar to OddzOn's design in terms of their football shape
18
and their tail and fins, it was incumbent on OddzOn to submit
19
evidence establishing that the ornamental aspects of their
20
football-with-tail-and-fin combination accounted for the similarity
21
perceived by the survey participants.”)
22
In sum, the evidence before the court does not create a
23
triable question as to whether MAC infringed Z Produx’s ‘743 design
24
patent through its sale of the MAC Palette.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
16
1
2
3
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Defendant
Make-up Art Cosmetics, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: November 5, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?