Harbor Freight 3 Ton Daytona Jack Versus Snap On FJ300 Jack

[gungatim]

wow just returned to this thread. interesting twist. don't know what they patented, but the trade dress piece would never hold up. When I worked for a generic drug mfgr. we got sued all the time. the more lawsuits we reasoned, the better. meant we were doing a good job. and trust me. we won 99% of them. trade dress is difficult to enforce. change the color a bit, and put "compare to" on the pkg. and you are good to go.

that jack is not the same color, and has different shape in a few areas. if SO wanted something to ***** about, there are lots of tools HF sells that are visually a carbon copy of snap-on.

I think what has them in a bunch is the comparison to truck brands in their ad. that is a new tactic for HF and clearly hit a nerve...

 

[gungatim]

Well Jim......If the snap on one is as great as lifetime lasting with the support that some people claim it has.....you will be able to order a part from snap on 25 years from now and put It on yours.

That's the wonderful thing tho. Even if you get 15 years out of it you sure will of had your money's worth. I bought a craftsman jack that was China made and I only recently go my rid of it because this Daytona came out and I wanted something a little faster and lower profile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

don't count on it. SO doesn't support many of their older tools when they are past end of life, especially rebranded ones.

 

[90zcar]

don't count on it. SO doesn't support many of their older tools when they are past end of life, especially rebranded ones.

That's kind of where I was going with that! People are expecting a lifetime of service and support with the Chinese snap on one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[90zcar]

Hiball, if you bought a dayton jack, would you take it apart and check everything before using it? I mean could you hone any imperfections and add better seals? I am curious to see if we can make a decent long lasting jack out of it.

Why are you so worried about it not being long lasting? I don't know why u would go through and take it apart when there's nothing wrong with it. Use it!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScottsGT]

Just checked HF website and noticed its a $200 item and unfortunately all the coupons state no jacks or Daytona branded items.

 

[WhiffySpark]

I see plenty of visual differences. Just cause **** looks similar doesn't mean it's the same. People are really bad about that on here. Just like the snap on taps everyone thinks they're the same as Irwin. But they aren't different design

I'll be buying the fj200

 

[amorrow]

Just checked HF website and noticed its a $200 item and unfortunately all the coupons state no jacks or Daytona branded items.

Try 49908198 for $20 off.

 

[amorrow]

Even as a hobbiest I mostly use Snap-On, but for overseas licensed products I'll look elsewhere. So I ordered this jack last week since it'll see a fraction of the cycles a pro will put it through, and after all the Snap-On also has a limited warranty. But unfortunately I went home last night to see HF sent the wrong one and I'm waiting for a replacement - haven't been able to try it out yet.

Seems I always pay a price when I decide to cheap out, but I still consider the wait and $7 shipping charge worth it to avoid the stench that hits you once you walk inside the store! lol

 

[Hiball]

Hiball, if you bought a dayton jack, would you take it apart and check everything before using it? I mean could you hone any imperfections and add better seals? I am curious to see if we can make a decent long lasting jack out of it.

I wouldn't, My only reasons for tearing into the ******** the shelf would be curiosity. The Average User of this jack isn't looking for a "long lasting" Jack, as far as that goes the percentage of users who will even think about re-sealing a Jack is slim to none. It's just the society we live in, not to mention the valve cartridge system isn't the greatest and will hurt this Jack in the long run. If a person is wanting a "long lasting Jack", then I would reccomend the HW93642/52 outside of currently being assembled with global components, it's still a tried and true design 75+ years, the seal components are Top Notch and proven and parts and seal kits are relatively cheap. Then again.... There will be a lime green or hot orange version of the low profile Jack within 3 years that will make everyone forget about Yellow.. Lol

 

[Loscaldazar]

I see plenty of visual differences. Just cause **** looks similar doesn't mean it's the same. People are really bad about that on here. Just like the snap on taps everyone thinks they're the same as Irwin. But they aren't different design

I'll be buying the fj200

I'm pretty sure the Snap On Tap and Dies are the same as Irwin's Highest grade HSS adjustable dies and HSS ground thread dies. They're not the same as Irwin's High Carbon steel sets or their non adjustable die sets.

http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1328991&postcount=11

 

[Rebound]

Hi guys! I've been a home mechanic for 30 years. I just bought this jack and one of my buddies at PriusChat pointed me to this thread. This jack replaced my tiny little Sears floor jack; the difference is amazing. The yellow color is a great idea; it'll prevent stubbed toes. The giant sticker peeled right off. This thing jacked my Prius WAY up high. It'll be so easy to work on now. I'm really glad I bought it but I might need bigger jack stands to benefit from the added height.

I wanted to ask a quick question -- when not in use, is it best to store it with the valve open and the handle pointed straight up? That seems right to me, but looks like there are some experts here. Thanks!

If any of you get a Prius repair job and you get confused, come ask us at PriusChat. #1 problem: Tiny 12V battery dies. When it dies, voltage goes low and car behaves erratically. Might not start, weird errors, etc. Be very careful to ensure correct polarity if you jump start one. Never try to jump start another car from a Prius, because its 12V battery isn't powerful enough to turn a starter.
Take care!

 

[ilovevocs]

When you google this "harbof freight snap on jack lawsuit" garage journal is the first hit!

https://www.biztimes.com/2016/09/22/snap-on-suing-harbor-freight-over-floor-jacks/


This link mentions discussion from tool forums stating buyers are confused about the origin due to similarity. Odd thing to think that our discussions are being used to present snap-on's case. Seems like the HF snap-on Discussions here have perked outside interest.

Going to be interesting one to watch for sure.

 

[promethean-in-fl]

I ran across your discussion here as a consumer doing research in connection with a potential jack purchase. I'm not an attorney, engineer, or in the lifting industry.

Being politically active on a local level, I do happen to have a pre-existing PACER account that gives me access to federal court records as a member of the public.

Given my tangential interest in this case, I won't have the budget to post here everything filed in this case, but I have downloaded a couple of files so far. Anyone who wants a full understanding of the case cannot rely solely on what I post to this forum since I am downloading only selective files with PACER to get a flavor of what is going on in the case. I offer no opinion on the merits of the case.

I'm attaching the body of Snap-On's complaint. It refers to exhibits that are not part of this post.

 

[T45]

I'm pretty sure the Snap On Tap and Dies are the same as Irwin's Highest grade HSS adjustable dies and HSS ground thread dies. They're not the same as Irwin's High Carbon steel sets or their non adjustable die sets. [/url]

There's alot of OEM stuff that is pure speculation. People say the left hand drill bits were Irwin, but they are published with MDSS sheets that by law have to show the OEMs. and the latest one shows an obscure french company. Before that they were precision twist. I have no idea about the snap-on tap and die set, but "looks alike" is meaningless with metalworking tools. You need some kind of documentation.

I think the daytona jack is definitely a clone, we can see it from the schematic of the parts. However, parts that matter are all not visible to the naked eye. So the cartridge and seals and what not are probably not the same, but overall alot of the design is there. Probably is a good deal for a bunch of people. Snap on list price is way out there.

That being said, the HW jack recommended above is like $280 on sale via Amazon. So you don't need to go to $600 to get a decent 2T jack via Snap On.

 

[General Geoff]

Thank you for the pdf, promethean-in-fl!

 

[Hiball]

Thank you for the pdf, promethean-in-fl!

+1 With that info I was able to secure the patent number and have linked it below. When you research the patent applicant it comes back as Sunex as the Oem.

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=D0730612&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3DD730,612.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2FD730,612%2526RS%3DPN%2FD730,612&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page

 

[promethean-in-fl]

Exhibit F in Snap-On's complaint is imaging of 76 posts to this discussion topic on Garage Journal running part way through September 11. Portions of some comments have been highlighted with yellow.

I haven't attempted to attach the pdf file for this exhibit because, at about 4.8 mb, it is well over the 145.5 kb limit the comment software says is the limit for an attachment on this forum.

EDIT: Missed one comment at the bottom. Make that 77 comments running through the last one posted on September 11. Exhibit F is 43 pages so I take this to be the sum of the 43 pages of discussion in an online tool forum referred to in the BizTimes article to which a link was posted earlier.

 

[nickjj]

Presumably the Chinese Snap on jack is more expensive than the Chinese Harbor Freight jack?

 

[90zcar]

Maybe snap on stole the jack from harbor freight!! Bam!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jacked_72]

So the mighty patent is for the "ornamental design." Wow. We're all talking about the guts and seals and quality and the workings of the jack and Snapon's complaint is that the "ornamental design" of the HF jack is too close to its own. I find this pretty funny. And one of the things in the lawsuit is that people are confused about the origins of the jacks. I'd say not so. We know they're from China. I think its just the justification for the cost of the yellow one versus the red one that has people questioning the situation.

 

[jacked_72]

Exhibit F in Snap-On's complaint is imaging of 76 posts to this discussion topic on Garage Journal running part way through September 11. Portions of some comments have been highlighted with yellow.

I haven't attempted to attach the pdf file for this exhibit because, at about 4.8 mb, it is well over the 145.5 kb limit the comment software says is the limit for an attachment on this forum.

EDIT: Missed one comment at the bottom. Make that 77 comments running through the last one posted on September 11. Exhibit F is 43 pages so I take this to be the sum of the 43 pages of discussion in an online tool forum referred to in the BizTimes article to which a link was posted earlier.

Makes you wonder about the OP. As of today he has 2 posts. Just wondering if the post was to get this discussion started to have a basis of showing "confusion."

 

[Travisnd]

Makes you wonder about the OP. As of today he has 2 posts. Just wondering if the post was to get this discussion started to have a basis of showing "confusion."

Interesting thought.

 

[ge.raam]

Looks like we got ourselves a good ol fashion Hardy boy mystery

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Rebound]

Makes you wonder about the OP. As of today he has 2 posts. Just wondering if the post was to get this discussion started to have a basis of showing "confusion."

Nobody's been able to list a single difference between the two jacks, except the color and the wheel size. Everything else has been guesses about the piston or seal design.

I bought this jack on a whim... I was about to pick up the $139 jack. What I mostly liked was the color (no accidental toe stubs), the rubber pad, and it's overall beefiness. I certainly wasn't about to choose between this and a Snap-On product. I would have bought the $139 jack instead

 

[jacked_72]

I did a search on priuschat for Daytona and found nothing relating to a jack. I also searched garage journal on that site and nothing related to a jack.

And here are the views from the top. I see a number of differences to the cosmetics and ornamental design. I personally have no doubt they're from the same factory. What that equates to in terms of the important parts, I have no idea.

 

[Burgerkong]

Here's the complaint in its entirety (the same horseshit is repeated no less than four times, have bolded the relevant stuff and also attached the exhibits).

If HF drops all mention of Snap-on on the product page and uses no pictures of SO jacks or allude to it I think the case will be dropped. It's really a ******* match but we don't know if SO has negotiated an agreement with the OEM to disallow any other parties (or the OEM) from selling the jack.

Furthermore, if you removed the SO sticker and the embossed cover from the SO jack you cannot tell it actually is a SO product, except for the fact that it's red but that's extremely shaky ground (and the plethora of advertising telling you this red jack is indeed a SO product). And no, I don't find it substantially in shape either, as you can clearly see design differences (rear casters and the wing shape). Since the SO patent only deals with the aesthetics and not the actual functioning parts, there needs to be a line drawn where form stops and function begins. The wing has been a feature on many other jacks, such as the Michelin low profile ones and hell the older HW/Walker/Lincoln versions mainly to stiffen up the side panels, so it's functional not merely for aesthetics.

Also, if say Channellock can sell their adjustable wrenches alongside Irega, or Irwin can sell their tap/die sets and whoever OEMs the snap ring pliers, HF can too since aside from the comparison pic on their webpage, there's no evidence that it is in fact allegedly based upon the SO.

28870591v.4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SNAP-ON INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC.
Defendant.
)))))))))

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Snap-on Incorporated (“Snap-on”), for its complaint against Defendant, Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (“Harbor Freight”), states as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

This is an action for: (a) infringement of US Design Patent No. D730,612, pursuant to the US Patent Act, 35 USC § 101, et. seq.; (b) trade dress infringement under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (c) unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125; and (d) common law unfair competition, stemming from Harbor Freight’s
using, selling, having sold, offering to sell, making, having made, and/or importing or having imported into the United States, certain garage floor jack products.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Snap-on, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and has a principal place of business at 2801 80th Street, Kenosha, Wisconsin.

2. Defendant, Harbor Freight, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and has a principal place of business at 26541 Agoura Road, Calabasas, California.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§1331
and 1338(a), in that this matter arises under an Act of Congress relating to patents and the Lanham Act. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction of the claim arising under common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Harbor Freight pursuant to Wis. Stat. §801.05, because Harbor Freight has a place of business(es) located within this district, has committed the acts complained of herein in this district, and/or transacts business within this district.

5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1400, in that Harbor Freight (a) has regular and established places of business within this district, and (b) engaged in one or more acts complained of herein within this district, including, inter alia, infringement within this district by selling and/or offering to sell products that directly, or contributorily infringe or induce others to infringe, the claim of U.S. Patent no. D730,612 (the
‘612 Patent).

FACTS

6. Snap-on is a well-known designer, marketer, and seller of high-quality, high-end tools, garage accessories, and other equipment.

7. Purchasers, customers and end-users purchase and use Snap-on’s products because of Snap-on’s service, reputation and good will, and the high quality and reliability of the products Snap-on designs and sells.

8. Snap-on sells and offers for sale garage floor jacks, including Snap-on’s FJ200 (2-ton rated) and FJ300 (3-ton rated) floor jacks (collectively “Snap-on’s Jacks”). (Attached as Exhibit A are representative photos of Snap-on’s Floor Jacks, compared to the ‘612 Patent).

9. Purchasers, customers, and end-users associate the shape, appearance, and nonfunctional features of Snap-on’s Jacks with Snap-on, including its reputation and good will.

10. Harbor Freight manufacturers, has manufactured, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports or has imported into the United States, garage floor jacks, including, but not limited to, the Daytona 3 Ton Super Duty Floor Jack (DJ3000) (bearing sku 63183) (collectively “Harbor Freight’s Jacks”). (Attached as Exhibit B are representative photos of Harbor Freight’s Jacks,
compared to the ‘612 Patent; attached as Exhibit C is a Harbor Freight sale brochure marketing Harbor Freight’s Jacks).

11. On information and belief, Harbor Freight first sold or offered for sale Harbor Freight’s Jacks, within this district and elsewhere, in late August 2016.

12. Harbor Freight sells and offers to sell Harbor Freight’s Jacks and other products on its website, which is available to and targets purchasers, customers, and end-users, within this district and elsewhere. (See Harbor Freight website, http://www.harborfreight.com/3-tondaytona-professional-steel-floor-jack-super-duty-63183.html (printout attached as Exhibit D)).

13. On Harbor Freight’s website, Harbor Freight states it has “700+ Stores
Nationwide.” (See Id.).

14. According to Harbor Freight’s website, Harbor Freight has at least three retail stores located in this district, including in or around Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and/or Racine, Wisconsin. (See Harbor Freight website, http://www.harborfreight.com/storelocator/location/map?zipcode_input=Milwaukee, WI, United States (print-out attached as Exhibit E)).

15. Harbor Freight’s Jacks are substantially identical in shape and appearance to Snap-on’s Jacks. (See e.g. Exhibit H, showing side-by-side comparisons of Harbor Freight’s Jacks to Snap-on’s Jacks).

16. Purchasers, customers, and/or end-users have been confused as to the source and/or origin of Harbor Freight’s Jack, and/or Snap-on’s approval of or affiliation with Harbor Freight and/or Harbor Freight’s Jack.

17. For example, and without limitation, some purchasers, customers, and/or endusers confusingly and/or mistakenly believe that Snap-on’s Jacks and Harbor Freights Jack are the same, including having the same design, are manufactured by the same manufacturer, utilize the same components, and/or are built of the same quality. (See e.g., Exhibit F showing
customer and end-user confusion).

COUNT I
(Patent Infringement)

18. Snap-on restates and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-17, as if fully set forth herein.

19. Snap-on is the owner, by assignment, of all rights, title and interest in and to the ‘612 Patent, entitled FLOOR JACK, which was duly issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on May 26, 2015. (‘612 Patent attached as Exhibit G).

20. Snap-on’s Jacks incorporate the invention(s) claimed in the ‘612 Patent. (See e.g., Exhibit A).

21. Harbor Freight’s Jacks embody the design patented in the ‘612 Patent, or, at a minimum, a colorable imitation thereof. (See e.g., Exhibit C).

22. An ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be, and has been,
deceived into believing Harbor Freight’s Jacks are the same as the design patented in the ‘612 Patent. (See e.g., Exhibit F).

23. Without permission or license from Snap-on, Harbor Freight uses, manufactures, has manufactured, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports or has imported into the United States, within this judicial district and elsewhere, products, including, inter alia, Harbor Freight’s Jacks, that directly infringe, contributorily infringe, and/or induce others to infringe, the claim of the
‘612 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

24. Harbor Freight has notice of its infringement as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

25. Harbor Freight’s infringement has been, and continues to be, willful.

26. Harbor Freights’ infringement of the ‘612 Patent has caused, and continues to cause, irreparable injury to Snap-on, and unless and until Harbor Freight’s infringement of the ‘612 Patent is enjoined by this Court, Snap-on will continue to suffer irreparable injury because of Harbor Freight’s infringement. Snap-on has no adequate remedy at law.

Part 2 continues below...

 

[Burgerkong]

Continued from above....

COUNT II
(Trade Dress Infringement Under Section 43 of the Lanham Act)

27. Snap-on restates and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-17, as if fully set forth herein.

28. The appearance of Snap-on’s Jacks includes nonfunctional features that have acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace, and that identify the product and its source to customers, potential customers, purchases and end-users as being from Snap-on.

29. Snap-on has built and acquired good will associated with the appearance and nonfunctional features of Snap-on’s Jacks.

30. The appearance of Snap-on’s Jacks constitutes protectable trade dress pursuant to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

31. Harbor Freight’s Jacks misappropriate, use, and appear substantially identical to, the appearance and non-functional features of Snap-on’s Jacks. (See e.g., Exhibit H).

32. Harbor Freight’s marketing, sale, and/or offering for sale, of the Harbor Freight Jacks, within this district and elsewhere, which incorporate and/or use the distinctive features and appearance of Snap-on’s Jacks, constitutes a use in commerce of false designation of origin, and/or false or misleading descriptions or representations, that are likely to cause, and have
caused, purchasers, customers, and/or end-users, confusion and mistake, and/or to deceive purchasers, customers and/or end-users, as to the source or origin of Harbor Freight’s Jacks and/or the affiliation, connection, and/or association of Harbor Freight with Snap-on, and/or the origin, sponsorship, and/or approval, of Harbor Freight’s Jacks by Snap-on.

33. Harbor Freight’s actions cause Harbor Freight to infringe Snap-on’s trade dress rights, and the good will associated therewith, in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 USC §1125(a).

34. Harbor Freight’s acts are, and continue to be, willful, and are undertaken with the intent to misappropriate, and have misappropriated, the good will and reputation associated with Snap-on and Snap-on’s Jacks.

35. Harbor Freights’ actions have caused, and continued to cause, irreparable injury to Snap-on, and unless and until Harbor Freight’s actions are enjoined by this Court, Snap-on will continue to suffer irreparable injury because of Harbor Freight’s actions. Snap-on has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT III
(Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation)

36. Snap-on restates and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-35, as if fully set forth herein.

37. The appearance of Snap-on’s Jacks includes nonfunctional features that have acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace, and that identify the product and its source to customers, potential customers, purchasers, and end-users as being from Snap-on.

38. Snap-on has built and acquired good will associated with the appearance and nonfunctional features of Snap-on’s Jacks.

39. Harbor Freight’s Jacks misappropriate, use, and appear substantially identical to, the appearance and non-functional features of Snap-on’s Jacks. (See e.g., Exhibit H)

40. Harbor Freight’s marketing, sale, and/or offering for sale, of the Harbor Freight Jacks, which incorporate and/or use the distinctive features and appearance of Snap-on’s Jacks, constitutes a use in commerce of false designation of origin and/or false or misleading descriptions or representations, that are likely to cause, and have caused, purchasers, customers, and/or end-users, confusion and mistake, and/or to deceive purchasers, customers, and/or endusers as to the source and/or origin of Harbor Freight’s Jacks, and/or the affiliation, connection, and/or association of Harbor Freight with Snap-on, and/or the origin, sponsorship, or approval of
Harbor Freight’s Jacks by Snap-on.

41. Harbor Freight’s actions constitute unfair competition and false designation, in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham act, 15 USC §1125(a).

42. Harbor Freight’s acts are, and continue to be, willful, and are undertaken with the intent to misappropriate, and have misappropriated, the good will and reputation associated with Snap-on and Snap-on’s Jacks.

43. Harbor Freights’ actions have caused, and continued to cause, irreparable injury to Snap-on, and unless and until Harbor Freight’s actions are enjoined by this Court, Snap-on will continue to suffer irreparable injury because of Harbor Freight’s actions. Snap-on has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT IV
(Common Law Unfair Competition)

44. Snap-on restates and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-43, as if fully set forth herein.

45. The appearance of Snap-on’s Jacks includes nonfunctional features that have acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace, and that identify the product and its source to customers, potential customers, purchasers, and/or end-users as being from Snap-on.

46. Snap-on has built and acquired good will associated with the appearance and nonfunctional features of Snap-on’s Jacks.

47. Harbor Freight’s Jacks misappropriate, use, and appear substantially identical to, the appearance and non-functional features of Snap-on’s Jacks. (See e.g. Exhibit H)

48. Harbor Freight’s use, marketing, sale, and/or offering for sale, of the Harbor Freight Jacks, which incorporate and/or use the distinctive features and appearance of Snap-on’s Jacks, constitutes a use in commerce of false designation of origin and/or false or misleading descriptions or representations that are likely to cause, and have caused, purchasers, customers, and/or end-users, confusion and mistake, and/or to deceive purchasers, customers, and/or endusers as to the source and/or origin of Harbor Freight’s Jacks, and/or the affiliation, connection, and/or association of Harbor Freight with Snap-on, and/or the origin, sponsorship, and/or approval of Harbor Freight’s Jacks by Snap-on.

49. Harbor Freight’s actions constitute common law unfair competition.

50. Harbor Freight’s acts are, and continue to be, willful, and are undertaken with the intent to misappropriate, and have misappropriated, the good will and reputation associated with Snap-on and Snap-on’s Jacks.

51. Harbor Freights’ actions have caused, and continued to cause, irreparable injury to Snap-on, and unless and until Harbor Freight’s actions are enjoined by this Court, Snap-on will continue to suffer irreparable injury because of Harbor Freight’s actions. Snap-on has no adequate remedy at law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Snap-on prays for an order and judgment in its favor and against Harbor Freight as follows:

a. preliminarily and permanently enjoining Harbor Freight, and its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and attorneys, and any and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from using, making, causing to be made, selling, offering to sell, causing to be sold, and/or importing or causing to be imported into the United States, any products that directly infringe, contributorily infringe, or induce others to infringe, the claim of the ‘612 Patent;

b. preliminarily and permanently enjoining Harbor Freight, and its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and attorneys, and any and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from using, making, causing to be made, selling, offering to sell, causing to be sold, and/or importing or causing to be imported into the United States, any products that infringe Snap-on’s trade dress rights;

c. ordering Harbor Freight to pay to Snap-on the damages that Snap-on has incurred as a result of the acts complained of herein, including, but not limited to, an award to Snap-on of Snap-on’s lost profits and/or Harbor Freight’s total profits, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;

d. a finding that Harbor Freight’s actions and infringement has been willful, and that any damages award be trebled, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

e. ordering Harbor Freight to pay to Snap-on its costs and expenses of this action, and its attorneys' fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, as a result of the acts complained of herein; and

f. awarding Snap-on any other relief that this Court deems just and fit.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Snap-on demands a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by a jury.

Dated: September 21, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
SNAP-ON INCORPORATED
By: /s/ Justin K. Beyer
Justin K. Beyer
Joseph R. Lanser (admission in ED Wis
pending)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel: 312-460-5000
Fax: 312-460-7000
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Snap-on Incorporated

 

[Burgerkong]

I did a search on priuschat for Daytona and found nothing relating to a jack. I also searched garage journal on that site and nothing related to a jack.

And here are the views from the top. I see a number of differences to the cosmetics and ornamental design. I personally have now doubt they're from the same factory. What that equates to in terms of the important parts, I have no idea.

Well the wing design is different, the stickers are in different locations and are completely dissimilar, the rear caster mount is constructed differently and the colour/embossing on the coverplate is different as well. For all intents and purposes again, two different products sharing the same power unit - but that's functional not ornamental.

 

[Rebound]

I did a search on priuschat for Daytona and found nothing relating to a jack. I also searched garage journal on that site and nothing related to a jack.

And here are the views from the top. I see a number of differences to the cosmetics and ornamental design. I personally have now doubt they're from the same factory. What that equates to in terms of the important parts, I have no idea.

When you look at the two jacks from the side, they look VERY identical. There's zero chance that the HF jack was designed without copying aspects of the Snap-On jack. Look at the first post in this thread. They look incredibly close to identical; every bolt is in the same place. From the top, the "wings" have slightly different shape, which you can't see at all from the side view.

Harbor Freight is running a "Compare the Two Jacks" ad. I saw it on the Garage Journal home page. It includes a link to a $20 off coupon.

 

[90zcar]

Now I wanna buy the snap on rubber pad and put it on my lift cup. Maybe the cross plate as well and paint it yellow. I better start buying parts from snap on for this thing now...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burgerkong]

When you look at the two jacks from the side, they look VERY identical. There's zero chance that the HF jack was designed without copying aspects of the Snap-On jack. Look at the first post in this thread. They look incredibly close to identical; every bolt is in the same place. From the top, the "wings" have slightly different shape, which you can't see at all from the side view.

Harbor Freight is running a "Compare the Two Jacks" ad. I saw it on the Garage Journal home page. It includes a link to a $20 off coupon.

So why doesn't Hein Werner (Shinn Fu) or Lincoln or Walker sue SO for selling this?

https://store.snapon.com/Short-Chas...c-Service-2-1-2-Ton-23-max-lift--P644012.aspx

It is IDENTICAL to what other manufacturers sell. It depends on the licensing sure, but SO is on thin grounds here because the so called professionals that buy their products do so not because it looks **** (well some do, but that's not a consideration for a floor jack) but rather based on performance, which is mutually exclusive to how it looks. Yes you can say oh the minimum height of the SO looks lower, but that's because it was designed that way to offer better performance when dealing with low profile cars, not because it looks better than higher profile jacks. Hence the 'ornamental design'/visually identical argument holds little water - generally speaking all jacks are visually similar in that most have wheels/casters/handles etc. Fact: the Daytona *may* resemble the SO in the fact that they have similar components, but the design is different enough that noone will mistake it for a SO if they have never seen the latter before - SO may have overstated how well known the jack is.

Barely any merit that patent holds TBH, and even less so for that court case.

 

[jacked_72]

Agreed. And which is why we have two new members posting only in this tread stirring the pot. I think that we are being played.

 

[Burgerkong]

And I STILL don't own one yet lol.

 

[Hiball]

So why doesn't Hein Werner (Shinn Fu) or Lincoln or Walker sue SO for selling this?

https://store.snapon.com/Short-Chas...c-Service-2-1-2-Ton-23-max-lift--P644012.aspx

It is IDENTICAL to what other manufacturers sell. It depends on the licensing sure, but SO is on thin grounds here because the so called professionals that buy their products do so not because it looks **** (well some do, but that's not a consideration for a floor jack) but rather based on performance, which is mutually exclusive to how it looks. Yes you can say oh the minimum height of the SO looks lower, but that's because it was designed that way to offer better performance when dealing with low profile cars, not because it looks better than higher profile jacks. Hence the 'ornamental design'/visually identical argument holds little water - generally speaking all jacks are visually similar in that most have wheels/casters/handles etc. Fact: the Daytona *may* resemble the SO in the fact that they have similar components, but the design is different enough that noone will mistake it for a SO if they have never seen the latter before - SO may have overstated how well known the jack is.

Barely any merit that patent holds TBH, and even less so for that court case.

Please go back and re-read post #3, you guys are getting so amped up that you confusing the facts. The reason Snap On isn't suing shinn fu (your link) or (previous)Walker/Lincoln is because "they" Snap on doesn't manufacture there own lift equipment, they Never have thus they "Pay" a secondary company to produce and label under the Snap on brand. Now, If Snap On had designed/patented* there own frame design and Shinn fu/Lincoln/Walker infringed on the design with there own branded jacks, we would be in a similar situation. I would also like to note... Im not for or against this lawsuit, I really don't give a ****, neither one of them impress me.

 

[90zcar]

I ate a berks hot dog today that last looked almost identical to an oscar Mayer one. They better get on that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lightning02]

I ate a berks hot dog today that last looked almost identical to an oscar Mayer one. They better get on that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thats ******* funny right there

 

[Pipe]

If the Hein Warner was fast pump I'd buy it.

 

[Rebound]

Agreed. And which is why we have two new members posting only in this tread stirring the pot. I think that we are being played.

How dare you question my integrity! I'm not a plant for the Snap-On Tools company, but if anybody from Snap-On's listening, send me a PM and I'll write anything you want in return for a 50% off coupon. See? I value my integrity. It's worth a 50% off Snap-On Tools coupon.

Here are the exploded diagrams of each one.

 

[ex-x-fire]

This is my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Pipe]

This is my thoughts on the subject[emoji38]_hitti.

Fair enough but fast pump is a big selling point for either jack.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk