Honestly, it’s posts (and threads) like this that make me think I‘m wasting my time on this site. I tried to offer the legal framework that governs this question. Another poster (a nonlawyer who lives in Canada) tells me my analysis is “weird.” And now you tell me that it’s “empty” because the economics of product piracy overwhelm the legal remedies.
You are certainly right about the economics. But that is a non sequitur. What has that to do with the legal framework for protecting trademarks in the United States? And why disparage my explanation as empty? Can you not make your valid point, that the law is not well-equipped to redress the flood of product piracy, without disparaging someone who’s trying to offer an answer to the OP’s question?
To be clear, you've stated that this would be "...a rather simple trade dress case to prove[,]" that it was a "slam dunk[,]" and that you'd take it on "contingency." I don't think anyone here is saying, at least not me, that it is unwinnable, but at the same time, it would appear that you're painting much too rosy a picture as to the ease of winning.
First off, I'm not aware of JOBO having any U.S. registration covering the trade dress in question. If my understanding on this is incorrect, please provide me with the registration number. Regardless, while this in and of itself does not prevent JOBO from asserting claims under the Lanham Act you cited to previously, it does mean that JOBO will have to
prove that it has trademark rights to assert. With trade dress, this is no simple task. Trade dress is never inherently distinctive, so JOBO will have to prove that its trade dress has obtained secondary meaning within the consuming public, including that they have exclusive rights to said trade dress. This is where the other
similar color schemes and competing products within the industry come into play; if JOBO is not the
exclusive user of said color scheme, it will make their case of having obtained secondary meaning that much more difficult. Mind you, I'm not saying impossible, but again, you're the one who has asserted that this case is "rather simple" and a "slam dunk." Moreover, in addition to having to
publicly provide sales and advertising information, this type of matter will no doubt have to include a survey of the consuming public, and expert witness in support thereof, of which one hopes it comes back in JOBO's favor.
Second, and only if all the above has been proved (i.e., that JOBO's color scheme/product look has obtained secondary meaning and therefore has assertable trademark rights in its trade dress), then you need to prove likelihood of confusion. I'm not aware of anyone saying that there are instances of
actual confusion going on (
e.g., "I bought this thinking that it was a JOBO based upon its looks but later learned that it was not."), so again this could be an uphill battle. Without going into all of the intricacies, this will more than likely mean that
another survey of the consuming public will have to be taken (or at least an enlarged first survey covering more than one issue); not only are these not inexpensive (low six figures is not out of the ballpark for survey and supporting expert witness), but they need to come back in JOBO's favor.
In short... I think there's a lot of variables here which could make this a difficult case.