Certain Electric Power Tools, Battery Cartridges, and ... - USITC

143. Mr. Bartlett, complainants' design expert testified that saidExhibit B is comprised of both distinctive features and merely observabledifferences.(Bartlett, Tr. 1949; Unopposed SPF D-12).144. Mr. Bartlett had a role in the preparation of Exhibit B.(Bartlett, Tr. 1943; Unopposed SPF D-11).145. Mr. Hattori, President of Makita U.S.A., testified that theoverall design is more important than the individual features. (Hattori,Tr. 782). He was not sure whether only one, or more of the individualfeatures constituted a claimed Makita trademark.He indicated that one,or even three, features might constitute a trademark. (Hattori, Tr. 781-82)- He finally stated that if respondents had copied even one featureof the ten or eleven features listed, then it could constituteinfringement.(Hattori, Tr. 783; Unopposed SPF D20).146. Gerald Margolis, Makita's General Counsel, testified that eachdesign feature of each power tool at issue, in and of itself, constitutesA trademark. (Margolis, Tr. 3031-32; RXP 419, Margolis Dep., at 101;Unopposed SPF D17).147. Mr. Margolis also testified that the features must be incombination and take on the overall design/Makita appearance for a comonlaw trademark to be asserted.(Margolis, Tr. 3134-35; Unopposed RPF259)148. Mf, hrgolis also testified that to an employee of Makita theremay be some features which have greater significance than others.(Margolis, Tr. 3158; Unopposed RPF 264).149. Mr. Margolis was unable to identify with certainty thetrademark features of the tools at issue without resort to documents,50