Searz strikes again....
- Thread starter mattygee
- Start date
On a business trip to China many years ago I was shown various items for sale that were originally made for larger (U.S) manufacturers. They were quite happy to sell products to me that were designed by and supposedly protected by copyright.
When I questioned this I was told, "no problem, we can supply with any picture you like on box".
Absolutely no scruples when it comes to copyright or health and safety standards.
When I questioned this I was told, "no problem, we can supply with any picture you like on box".
Absolutely no scruples when it comes to copyright or health and safety standards.
Steinmetz
Well-known member
Without comparing the accused device with the actual elements in the claim, infringement, either literal or under the Doctrine of Equivalents cannot be asserted with certainty (the patent owner needs to buy one in a preferred jurisdiction, and disassemble it to verify that it has all of the recited elements, then sue there). However...
It seems to me that Sears is engaging in behavior that is extremely risky, because they have knowledge of a valid patent that their product may potentially infringe, yet they are selling it anyway. This leaves them open to a claim of willful infringement, and treble damages may be awarded.
NHBandit
Well-known member
Recently a large flea market in NH got raided and Chinese knock off "Gucci" pocketbooks & stuff were confiscated and the sellers arrested. Why can those smalltime flea market vendors be prosecuted but big name companies like Sears get a free pass ?
Steinmetz
Well-known member
The actual vendors are contributory infringers. The host of the flea market may also be a contributory infringer, and that's where the bite is. The vendors usually don't have much to go after, as opposed to the drive-in, etc. that hosts the event.
