This case, like many trademark cases before it, is a contest between an oldtimer and a newcomer. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court denying Lubecore's Rule 50 motion with respect to Groeneveld's trade-dress claim, AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Groeneveld's other claims, and REMAND the case with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of Lubecore on all claims.

Groeneveld in turn cross-appeals from the dismissal of its other claims. Lubecore appeals the denial of its Rule 50 motion with respect to the trade-dress claim. The trade-dress claim went to the jury, which found for Groeneveld and awarded it $1,225,000 in damages. All the claims except trade-dress infringement were dismissed when the district court granted Lubecore's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. § 1125(a), and further violates a number of related federal and Ohio laws. The complaint asserts that such copying constitutes trade-dress infringement in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham (Trademark) Act, 15 U.S.C. sued Lubecore International, Inc., claiming that Lubecore's automotive grease pump is a “virtually identical” copy of Groeneveld's automotive grease pump. In so holding, we reaffirm that trademark law is designed to promote brand recognition, not to insulate product manufacturers from lawful competition. The key issue in this case is whether a company can use trade-dress law to protect its functional product design from competition with a “copycat” design made by another company where there is no reasonable likelihood that consumers would confuse the two companies' products as emanating from a single source. Germain, Wood Herron & Evans LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Amicus Curiae. Kunselman, Miller Goler Faeges Lapine LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross–Appellant. Zujkowski, Ulmer & Berne LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross–Appellee. Michelson, Miller Goler Faeges Lapine LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee/Cross–Appellant. Anastos, Ulmer & Berne LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant/Cross–Appellee. Decided: September 12, 2013īefore GILMAN, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.ĪRGUED:Thomas L. LUBECORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant–Appellant/Cross–Appellee. GROENEVELD TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY, INC., Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant, v. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.

Groeneveld grease system repair manual