At 3:58 PM -0800 3/24/00, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>But there's an exception: the original NetFrame server boxes. The
>blue-striped black monolith design of boxes like the NF250 or NF450
>was unique; none of the other builders made a box that would be
>confused with a NetFrame box. When you saw one of those boxes, you
>instantly knew who made it, *completely independent* of the presence
>or absence of the protected identifier "NetFrame" somewhere on the
>box. So, this is a design that meets the requirement of the statute
>for those that "almost automatically tell a customer that they refer
>to a brand,....", and would be a protected design.


I don't intend to detract from your example here, or from your explanation
of your understanding of the judge's ruling. You make good points. However,
I've never heard of a NetFrame server, and so if I saw one of the uniquely
designed boxes I wouldn't say "Aha, a NetFrame server!". I might say "Cool
design", but the brand identity still wouldn't be obvious, and it certainly
wouldn't be obvious to most other consumers, either. In my mind, therefore,
this wouldn't qualify under the judge's "trade dress" definition.

If you're looking for an example of a computer that *does* qualify, then
look no further than Apple's iMac. This machine probably comes closer to
the Coke bottle than any other computer ever has in terms of its brand
recognition in the average consumer's eyes. In fact, Apple recently won its
own "trade dress" law suits against some wintel copy cats.

(I have a feeling that others may have had this on their minds when this
thread began, but were reluctant to mention it due to the flames that are
inevitably sparked whenever Apple is mentioned.)

BBL