Plaintiff and Defendant manufacture microphones (pictured above, plaintiff’s on the left). Plaintiff define its trades dress as:
(1) two vertical bars on either side of the microphone with two circular enclosures near the top and bottom, (2) a small portion of the microphone’s mesh protruding above the top circular enclosure, and (3) a threaded adapter with rounded hinges and a tapered bottom containing the microphone’s cord port.
Court finds that plaintiff didn’t show secondary meaning and denies prelim. I am a little puzzled by this discussion, however, after the court notes that plaintiff failed to submit a survey: