Amazon Sued For Copyright, Design Patent, Trademark & Trade Dress Infringement Due To Marketplace Seller
from the seems-like-a-stretch dept
Eric Goldman points us to a copyright, design patent, trademark and trade dress infringement lawsuit filed against Amazon by a design company called Mint Inc., (which is not the online financial firm that Intuit bought a while back). Apparently Mint created the "hugging" salt and pepper shakers that you may have seen (I've seen them around a few times), and registered a copyright and a design patent on them (again, a design patent is not the same thing as a standard utility patent, and is a lot more limited). Apparently another company, Shokomoko, was selling similar hugging salt and pepper shakers via Amazon's marketplace. Mint's lawyers sent a letter demanding this be stopped, then sent another one, and when nothing happened, sued both Shokomoko and Amazon (full filing embedded below).Now, of course, we often point to safe harbors when it comes to service providers, and those could conceivably come into play partly here. Amazon, as a company with a registered DMCA agent, would normally have a safe harbor against user actions on copyright claims -- but the original letter sent by Mint's lawyer, while not officially declaring itself to be a DMCA takedown, certainly does seem to satisfy all the required elements of a DMCA notice (copyright lawyers, feel free to chime in and clarify). Thus, the fact that Amazon did not respond, may actually open up the company to liability. That's just the copyright claim, though. While Section 230 protects other types of third party liability, it has an explicit exception for "intellectual property," meaning that the design patent, (common law) trademark and trade dress claims might live on as well.
Even so, however, it seems like Amazon might have a pretty strong defense, as it has no way of knowing whether or not the salt and pepper shakers actually infringe. In fact, as I read through the complaint, I started to wonder if Shokomoko wasn't buying Mint's legitimate salt and pepper shakers and reselling them. Perhaps there's more evidence that they're counterfeit, but it's not clear from the filing. Mint claims Shokomoko is not "authorized" to sell such things, but if it bought them legally and is reselling them, this becomes a bit trickier. I have to admit I'm a bit surprised that Amazon didn't respond to the two letters from Mint's lawyers.
Either way, is this really the best use of Mint's time and money? Is it really such a bad thing that another company is competing with them in selling salt and pepper shakers that look the same? If Mint is the original creator, play up that fact and keep designing cool new things, rather than worrying about any copycats. And, no matter what you think of the evilness of infringement, doesn't it seem silly to involve Amazon at all? If there's a legitimate complaint here, shouldn't it just be between Mint and Shokomoko?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, design patents, salt and pepper shakers, secondary liability, trade dress, trademark
Companies: amazon, mint, shokomoko
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I doubt that these are "buy and resell" products, rather knockoffs or replicas (which would be cheaper than buying retail and trying to resale). Unless they were able to somehow obtain a number of these things way below market value, it is unlikely they could do it with actual product.
Let's just say it doesn't look good for either Amazon or Shokomoko at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe then most stores start opting on the side of caution rather than get sued? kind of like a DMCA for actual physical goods?
And what store manager gets to determine whether the item infringes, does he get a copy of the original patent to review? I hope its the night shift, then my chocolate rectangle dominates the candy aisle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So where's the kitchen sink?
*ducks*
Oh...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, I didn't say that. They were contacted on issues of copyright, trademark, and the like. Once contacted, they do need to take a moment to see where they stand. Either "no, we don't think so" or "Ooops, we will stop selling it" would be two good answers.
It appears that Amazon didn't take the notices seriously, which may create liability for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mint's legal team acted properly.
(1) Someone is liable for patent infringement (utility or design) if they "make, use or sell" an infringing product. Thus, both the manufacturer (Shokomoko) and the distributor (Amazon) may be liable for the damages owing to the alleged infringement. Also, design patents are not necessarily less broad/useful than a utility patent. In each case it depends on how the claim(s) are drafted.
(2) Copyright and Trademark/Trade Dress infringement are harder to prove for consumer products than design patent infringement, mostly because they are easier to invalidate. A copyright in the product requires that the aesthetics of the product must be conceptually or physically separable from the product's function. Trade dress protection only subsists when consumers associate the product design with its manufacturer (e.g., a Coke bottle).
Often in product design cases a plaintiff must sue under each theory because they are unsure which theory will ultimately prevail at trial. If they don't allege everything initially, there is a chance they will be estopped from bringing another claim later.
(3) Mint needed to sue Amazon because Shokomoko is a foreign corporation, whereas Amazon is located in the United States. Therefore, it is easier to get jurisdiction over, and enforce a judgment against, Amazon. Also, I would venture to guess that Amazon has deeper pockets. Having established that Amazon would also be liable for selling the infringing products, it is a no-brainer to sue Amazon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Just curious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am proud to say I bought nothing from Amazon last year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mint's legal team acted properly.
Yikes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mint's legal team acted properly.
But you are missing the point - if Amazon sells an infringing product, they are violating the law, and just as liable as the manufacturer.
Also, lawsuits are rarely initiated without notice. I'm sure Mint advised Amazon that the products allegedly infringed Mint's design. amazon likely disagreed, and that is why the case is moving forward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mint's legal team acted properly.
And lawyers wonder why people hate them so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]