This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P manufactures disposable pipette tips and dispenser syringes capable of accurate and rapid 'multiple dispensing' of liquids. P sells them in the United States marked with the word-marks 'COMBITIPS,' 'EPPENDORF' and 'EPPENDORF COMBITIPS.' By attaching a Combitip to the dispenser syringe, a user can rapidly dispense liquids in precisely measured aliquots. D began manufacturing disposable pipettes virtually identical to the Combitips. D's disposable pipettes were marked with the word-mark 'RITIPS' and distributed in boxes marked with Ritips and D's name. D introduced its own dispenser syringe, known in the market as the 'Ripette'. D's Ritips were compatible with P's Combitip Dispenser Syringe, and the Ritips were marketed as a 'direct replacement' for Combitips. P sued D asserting various trademark and trade dress infringement claims under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. P contends that D infringed upon eight elements of the Combitips's trade dress: (1) the flange on top of the tip; (2) the fins connecting the flange to the body of the tip; (3) the plunger head; (4) the plunger; (5) the length of the tips; (6) the eight sizes of the tips; (7) the coloring scheme on the tips; and (8) the angle of the stump on the tips. The jury returned a verdict for P. The district court entered final judgment for P for $1,000,000 in damages awarded by the jury, and an additional $750,000 in enhanced damages on the basis of the jury's finding of willful infringement. The district court permanently enjoined D from selling or marketing in the United States dispenser syringes or syringes of 'a confusingly similar design' to P's syringes. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.