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

would infringe the claimed design trademark of Makita and each of theindividual design features claimed, except for the overload protectorbutton and recess. (Compare CPX 225 with CPX 227 and RXP 327(a)). TheMark I drill is an almost identical copy to the Makita cordless drills.(CPX 229, CPX 227, RXP 327(a) and 344).However, the color of the Mark Iis a distinctively different shade of blue.369. The Puma 3/8" cordless drill, Model No. PA 8010 is identical tothe Mark I Model JD 327 above, and thus would infringe the alleged designtrademark and individual design features claimed by Makita, in the samemanner.(Compare CPX 206 with CPX 225 and RXP 327(a)).370. Respondent Poromes' 3/8" cordless drill, Model No. FK 706 (CPX174) is identical to the Makita drill in design and individual designfeatures. It would, therefore, infringe these claimed marks. (u, RXP327(a)).Since it is green, instead of blue, it could not be considered asinfringing any mark Hakita would have in its blue color, or in anydesign/color combination mark. CPX 174).371. Respondent Jenn Feng's Johnswell 3/8" cordless drill (CPX 223) isa close copy of the Makita drill in overall design.It would infringe theclaimed design mark.(Compare CPX 223 with CPX 227, 229 and RXP 327(a)).However, it does not contain a number of the specific design featuresclaimed by,Wita, as it has a different design for the textured grip,there is no lower protrusion in the gear case, there is no overloadprotector button (although the recess is provided) and the nameplate sizeis different. It is 41so a dintictively different color. (CPX 223).372. Respondent Ta Shin's 3/8" cordless drill, Model. No. DR-1 (CPX219) has an entirely different design than the Makita drills and would not112