## Facts

- Black & Decker manufactured the DUSTBUSTER portable rechargeable vacuum and owned U.S. Design Patent No. 257,661 and U.S. Patent No. 4,209,875.
- North American Philips Corp. (NAPC) sold a competing portable rechargeable vacuum, the NORELCO CLEAN UP MACHINE.
- Black & Decker alleged that NAPC’s product infringed the ’661 design patent and copied the DUSTBUSTER’s trade dress, causing consumer confusion and constituting unfair competition and false designation of origin.
- NAPC denied infringement and sought partial summary judgment on (1) noninfringement of the ’661 design patent and (2) noninfringement/absence of likely confusion on the configuration-based trade dress theories.
- A magistrate judge recommended granting partial summary judgment; the district judge adopted the recommendation in full, finding plaintiffs’ additional affidavits insufficient to create a material factual dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the design-patent “ordinary observer” standard, the accused product was substantially the same in overall appearance as the patented design such that an ordinary purchaser would be deceived.
2. Whether the accused product’s configuration was sufficiently similar to the asserted trade dress to create a likelihood of consumer confusion supporting unfair-competition and false-designation claims.
3. Whether the record showed no genuine dispute of material fact so that these similarity and confusion questions could be resolved on partial summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted NAPC’s motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court held there was no infringement of the ’661 design patent as a matter of law.
- The court held the configuration-based trade dress/unfair-competition and false-designation claims failed as a matter of law because the overall appearances were not sufficiently similar to support likely confusion.
- The court adopted the magistrate judge’s reasoning that evaluating “overall impression” may include considering particular features contributing to the overall appearance.

## Legal Principles

- Design-patent infringement turns on whether an ordinary observer, giving typical purchaser attention, would regard the accused design as substantially the same as the patented design and be deceived into purchasing one thinking it is the other.
- In applying the ordinary-observer test, courts focus on overall visual impression, but may consider specific features to assess whether the overall appearances are substantially the same.
- Trade dress claims based on product configuration require a likelihood of confusion as to source; where overall visual differences are pronounced, confusion may be rejected as a matter of law.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; additional affidavits that do not create a material dispute do not bar judgment.

## Conclusion

The court entered partial summary judgment for NAPC, concluding that the accused vacuum’s overall appearance differed enough from the patented design and asserted trade dress that no reasonable factfinder could find design-patent infringement or likely consumer confusion on configuration-based trade dress theories.


Black & Decker, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Corp., 632 F. Supp. 185 (D. Conn. 1986)