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

156. Mr. Bartlett testified that the particular shape of a batterycharger is not a major factor in the customer identification or selectionof the tool itself.(Bartlett, Tr. 1598-99; Unopposed SPF D27).157. At pages 3152-53 of the transcript, I directed complainants'counsel to clarify just what the issue is as to the various specificfeatures listed in Complainants* Supplemental Response to StaffInterrogatory 11 (the design features listed for each tool other than the7" and 9*' grinders). (Tr. 3152-53).158. Complainants* counsel responded in part as follows:(Tr. 3154-55).Item No. 3 basically amounts to thefollowing. We have a list of features whichat some if you want to call it magic point,leave an impression in the mind of a consumeror of anyone in this room of what the overalldesign of a tool actually is or what is itthat actually makes the tool distinctive.People may have different opinions as towhat it is that creates that impression. Thepoint here is Your Honor, at some point somecombination of these features will create theimpression of overall design that we claim isuniquely Makita. That is the purpose of ItemNo. 3. Therefore, what I believe Mr.Margolis is testifying is still correct.To one person; it MY be that very few ofthose features will create that impression.On the other hand, to another, it may be thatit will require'all of them but the point isthat these are features. We did not considerthem to constitute independent trademark- a-ignificant-type features but ratherdescriptive features that would at some pointcreate an impression of an overall design.159. Mr. Zeitler stated in response to my further question, that thecontrolling language in the response to Staff's Interrogatory 11 (ExhibitB to Mr. Griffin's witness statement) is "Overall design including one or52