Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
|
This information is taken directly from the court opinion. It is not taken out of context nor is it altered. |
From Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F. 2d 356 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1990 |
In its analysis, the district court seemed to focus on the similarity between the two mattresses to resolve the "new product" issue and dismissed
Marquis' modification of the cushions as trivial. We believe the comparison of the mattresses was misdirected. Because Roho is essentially
claiming that Marquis purchased one of its products and then sold that product in a slightly modified form under a different label, the central
comparison should be between the product Marquis purchased — the wheelchair cushions — and the product he ultimately marketed — the
mattress. In our view, there is no question that, by making the mattress, Marquis created a new product in relation to the wheelchair cushions.
He modified those cushions in a more than superficial manner by attaching them with the necessary glue and grommets to create a mattress.
Additionally, the two products are commercially distinguishable, in that [page 361] they are generally marketed to different consumers for different purposes.
In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the fact that Marquis' actions smack of some unfairness — he is using a patented product to parallel an unpatented product, the benefit of which is primarily derived from the patented product. However, while Marquis "procured" that patented invention from Roho, he paid the price they asked and Roho profited from the sale. If Marquis can buy component parts from Roho and assemble them into a product at a price that is competitive with another of Roho's products, that competition serves the public interest. |