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

If complainants had proven that they held common law trademark rightsin the claimed marks, and that respondents' sales of copies thereof hadcaused confusion among the purchasers of said products, and to the extentcomplainants have proven a domestic industry exists in certain of itsproducts atissue, then complainants would have also proven thatrespondents' accused practices caused it substantial injury.There is only one instance evidenced in the record where complainantshave lost specific sales to a respondent. Hakita lost sales of certainproducts to ( C 1( C )( C )( C ) Thus, the evidence of injurythrough specific lost sales is rather weak.However, the evidence doesreveal other strong evidence of actual injury,Complainants and respondents sell in the same channels of cormnerce, atleast to some substantial extent.In fact complainants share shelf spacewith respondents in a number of retail outlets. (FF 664.67). Further,respondents' accused power tools are generally priced substantially lowerthan complainants' comparable products.(FF 618-24) , It is clearlyinjurious to have look-alike products in the same display at asubstantially lower price. (FF 633).Respondonts and staff point to continued increaser in sales bycomplainants 18evidence that there has been no injury resulting fromrespondents' sales activities. (RB, at 64-65; SP, at 65-66) . However,industry wide sales have increased during the last two calendar years, (FF699). There is no evidence of record to show how Makita's sales increases247