Skip to content 
In the US two big and experienced portable pocket creators clashed in a trade dress infringement claim. Pocket Plus (PP) commenced proceedings claiming Running Buddy (RB) had infringed rights related to PP’s portable pouch. The outcome was one which surprised PP. In this post, we will discuss the Pocket Plus infringement.
Pocket Plus infringement
PP sells a portable pouch under the trademarked name “Pocket Plus”. The pouch is functional for holding small objects and comes in multiple sizes, all square in shape attached to its back end is a slim magnetic flap that allows the pouch to be worn on several different types of clothing. Near the pouch’s top edge is a small rectangular logo branded with PP’s trade mark.
Similarly to PP, RB’s pouches have magnetic flaps that can be used to attach the pouch to a waistband. The pouches look very similar in design side by side and RB also has a mini version which is in a vertical style similar to that of PP’s.
Running Buddy counter
RB counter-argued and applied for summary judgment on the grounds of functionality and distinctiveness claiming PP’s pouch was functional in nature and not distinctive enough to be protected. For a trade dress to be protected it must be non-functional. Where the trade dress is essential to the use or purpose of the product or when it affects the cost or quality of the product it would be classed as functional.
Courts decision
The Court held that this was an exceptional case and concluded that there is no genuine dispute that PP’s trade dress is functional and therefore not subject to trade-dress protection. In the words of the Court, “to grant trade-dress protection for PP would be to hand it a monopoly over the best portable-pouch design”. The purpose of trade mark law is to prevent situations as such this.
Although the Court affirmed the summary judgment in favour of RB, as both parties acted unreasonably during the process the Court only awarded one-quarter of the Court fees in favour of RB. As you can see, this case shows that a lose-lose situation is possible and ensures parties act reasonably, justly and proportionately during the process.
What is trademark infringement?
In relation to the Pocket Plus infringement case, when someone uses a trademarked name, logo, or design without the owner’s consent, this is known as trademark infringement. It entails the unauthorised use of a trademark that misleads consumers into thinking the infringing good or service is connected to or sponsored by the legitimate owner of the trademark.
Use of a similar logo, use of a similar brand name, or even unauthorised use of a well-known slogan are all examples of trademark infringement. To prevent legal repercussions and safeguard the integrity of brands and the associated goods and services, it is crucial for companies and individuals to comprehend and respect trademark rights.
Contact our expert team of solicitors through info@lawdit.co.uk or alternatively give us a call on 023 8023 5979
By Zohaib Tahir, an LLM student at Solent University
References for Pocket Plus infringement
Here are some references for Pocket Plus infringement, please feel free to browse them below.
- Pocket Plus (ThePocketPlus.COM)
- US (Wikipedia.ORG)
Posts related to Pocket Plus infringement
Here are some posts related to Pocket Plus infringement. Please feel free to browse them below.
- Types of Intellectual Property that can be found in a podcast
- Worlds Trusted Search Engine Google Fights Against Copycat
- Dream Pairs Overcomes Iconix in Trade mark dispute
- Genericide strikes again: Tupperware in trouble
- What is the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court?
- I am a Chinese lawyer. I do not understand Brexit and filing trade marks in the UK. Give me twenty reasons why is Brexit is good for China?
- I own a Chinese chain of nail salons in the UK. Can you explain what I need to do from a legal perspective?
- Can you register a meme or a GIF as a trade mark? What about a smell or a tattoo?
