Opinion ID: 210374
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Application of the Ordinary Observer Test

Text: In applying the ordinary observer test, a court is to compare the construed claims to the accused design to determine whether the designs have the same general visual appearance, such that it is likely that the purchaser [(or the ordinary observer)] would be deceived into confusing the design of the accused article with the patented design. Goodyear, 162 F.3d at 1118. Specifically, the question to be addressed in applying the ordinary observer test is whether the ordinary observer would be deceived by the accused design because it is substantially similar to the patented design. Gorham, 81 U.S. at 528. Under our case law, the ordinary observer test requires, as the district court recognized, the comparing of the accused and patented designs from all views included in the design patent, not simply those views a retail customer seeking to buy would likely see when viewing the product at the point of sale. Contessa, 282 F.3d at 1379. The record establishes that the ordinary observer would not be deceived by the similarities between Arminak's AA Trigger shroud and Calmar's patented sprayer shroud designs. Indeed, Calmar's own expert conceded that [i]t would be a significant exception for a corporate buyer purchasing the Arminak trigger sprayer to confuse the Calmar ERGO Shroud and the Arminak AA shroud and that [t]here is essentially no question that a corporate buyer purchasing these trigger sprayers with these specific shrouds would be able to tell the difference easily. Arminak, 424 F.Supp.2d at 1201-02. A former Calmar customer service manager also testified that most of Calmar's customers wouldn't be fooled for a second. Id. at 1201. We agree with the district court that the undisputed material facts establish that the ordinary observer would not be deceived by the similarities between Arminak's AA Trigger shroud and Calmar's patented sprayer shroud designs.