1 / 9

COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC .  v.  LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC.

COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC .  v.  LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC. Presented by Tamaz Lezhava. At its introduction the multi tool was arguably unique. Actions of Cooper Industries, Inc. Produced identical tool to the original in 1995 I ntroduced the tool at the 1996 National Hardware Show

jethro
Download Presentation

COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC .  v.  LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC. Presented by TamazLezhava

  2. At its introduction the multi tool was arguably unique

  3. Actions of Cooper Industries, Inc. • Produced identical tool to the original in 1995 • Introduced the tool at the 1996 National Hardware Show • Used the photos of Leatherman Multi tool in its posters, packaging, advertising materials, catalogs, etc.

  4. Leatherman Tool Group filed a civil suit against Cooper Industries asserting claims of trade-dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising under the Lanham Act.

  5. In October 1997, a federal jury returned a verdict against Cooper Industries on the false advertising, imitation, and unfair competition claims and awarded Leatherman Tool Group $50,000 in compensatory damages and $4.5 in punitive damages.

  6. Cooper's appealed the decision of District Court underBMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore case, claiming that punitive damages were grossly excessive. • The case was argued on February 26, 2001. The Court was asked to decide whether the Court of Appeals reviewed the constitutionality of the punitive damages award under the correct standard. • Ninth Circuit affirmed the punitive damages award, concluding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce that award.

  7. The Ninth Circuit erred in applying the less demanding abuse-of-discretion standard in this case. However, they should have applied a de novo standard. Gore’s necessary factors for evaluation: • The degree of the defendant's reprehensibility or culpability • The relationship between the penalty and the harm to the victim caused by the defendant's actions • The sanctions imposed in other cases for comparable misconduct

  8. Court of Appeals correctly held, such copying of the functional features of an unpatented product waslawful. • $50,000 was the potential harm Leatherman would have suffered had Cooper succeeded in its wrongful conduct, rather than actual injury. • Cooper's use of the picture had nothing to do with misleading customers but was related to its inability to obtain a "mock-up" quickly and cheaply. Yet $25,000 penalty per violation was assessed.

  9. Thank youhave a nice class time The only Source cited: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-2035

More Related