MTM/Amazon case. Bodum French press coffee makers have been carried by Williams-Sonoma in the past, but the company eventually dropped Bodum as a vendor. Subsequently, Williams-Sonoma began selling its own French press coffee makers. For anyone who has worked in an American company, one can imagine the sequence: after selling a branded product for a period of time, a retailer begins to consider that he could source the product himself, cutting his supplier in order. to increase profits.
This dynamic happens all the time and, by itself, would not necessarily be legally enforceable. However, Bodum claimed that Williams-Sonoma continued jewelry retouching service to deliberately create an infringement situation by continuing to use the Bodum name on its website, while displaying non-Bodum products. I was able to get a screenshot of a “Bodum” results page on the Williams-Sonoma.com website before suspending the page: Bodum French Press search results page of the Williams-Sonoma site The case was settled in
April, but I think the situation in question still raises a lot of questions. Assuming that the claims had been found to be well-founded, this case could have been an example to demonstrate the initial confusion of interests. The difference between the MTM/Amazon case and the Bodum/Williams-Sonoma case is perhaps that one would imagine that frequent customers of Williams-Sonoma, already familiar with Bodum products, could easily have been very confused. as to the origin of the most recent