Shenzhen Buxian Network Tech. Co., Ltd. d/b/a Veken v. Bodum USA, Inc., Slip Op., No. 20 C 1726 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2021) (Aspen, Sen. J.).

Judge Aspen denied plaintiff’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal in this trade dress dispute involving French press coffee makers.

A jury previously held that the identical French press Chambord design was non-functional and to have secondary meaning. The Court held that plaintiff had not met its burden of proving a reason to overcome the jury’s holding.

As an initial matter, there was no dispute matter of law. Plaintiff sought to overturn a jury verdict on the identical issue. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the Court did not hold that the prior jury’s verdict prevent any future third parties from challenging the determination. Rather, the Court held that it was incumbent upon the defendant to identify material differences that called the jury verdict into question. Plaintiff did not do that in this case.

Additionally, an interlocutory appeal would not have conserved resources. If anything, an appeal would only have delayed a trial, not eliminated one.

The Court, therefore, denied plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal. The Court also granted defendant Bodum’s motion to strike plaintiff’s declaratory judgement claim because it was duplicative of plaintiff’s claim in a related action.