I recently saw a commercial for the 2012 Mercedes Benz E-Class which interestingly enough focused on the patent portfolio of Mercedes Benz, more specifically Daimler AG. If you watch the commercial, Mercedes sells itself as more than just a leader and innovator in the field by stating it has more than 80,000 patents in its IP portfolio. This post is not going to be about all the patents that went into creating the E-Class, but instead discuss how some automobiles can look strikingly similar to those of its competitors, even with all those patents.
There are a few different types of patents. Here, two of them at issue are utility and design patents. A utility patent covers a new method, process, machine, device, manufactured item, or chemical compound that performs some sort of useful function. A design patent, on the other hand, only covers the ornamental design for an article of manufacture. There’s no doubt about it that Daimler AG owns a number of innovative utility patents that go into the manufacturing of all of its automobiles. Daimler AG, as well as most automotive manufacturers, is also very active in filing for design patents. These can range from the design of exterior components like the headlamps and bumpers to the overall layout of the interior.
Take a look at the pictures below. The car on the left is a Mercedes Benz and the one on the right is a Hyundai. The graphic in the middle is part of a design patent issued (Patent No. D 656871) to one of these manufacturers. You probably have to take a few looks at it to determine whose it is.
That design is one of the 80,000+ patents the commercial was talking about. For those of you familiar with the automobile industry, Hyundai recently revamped its brand by trying to tap in to the luxury automobile market with its introduction of the Hyundai Genesis as well as redesigning all of its vehicles. What better way to do this then create similar characteristics to your more expensive counterpart. For example, take a look at the design patent again; the lower dam area is pretty much the same shape, just flipped. The curves around the headlights and fog lights are similar as well, all while being different. Even the area where the grill goes bears a resemblance. The point is, although very similar, the differences are still noticeable and enough where Hyundai was able to avoid any problems and manufacture a vehicle that competes with manufacturers of high end automobiles.
In 2008, the Federal Circuit confirmed the test for design patent infringement in the case of Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. Infringement exists “if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other.” Who is an ordinary observer? The Federal Circuit referenced the 1933 case of Applied Arts Corp. v. Grand Rapids Metalcraft Corp., to state that an ordinary observer is not one “who has never seen an ash tray or a cigar lighter, but one who, though not an expert, has reasonable familiarity with such objects and is capable of assessing the similarity of the patented and accused designs in light of the similar objects in the prior art.”
That test and commentary sheds some light on how Hyundai, and other manufacturers, can push certain limits when designing their vehicles. An “ordinary observer” will not walk into a Mercedes Benz dealership expecting to buy a new Hyundai, and vice versa. Combine that with the actual differences seen in the designs and Hyundai stays in the clear.
