TULSA, Okla. — Dayco Products announced that a Consent Judgment and Injunction has been entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to resolve Dayco’s claims against Dorman Products Inc. Dayco filed the suit alleging, among other things, that Dorman had unlawfully copied the distinctive design of certain of its automatic belt tensioner products. The order grants Dayco judgment on those claims, among others.
Under the terms of the Consent Judgment and Injunction, Dorman is “permanently enjoined from manufacturing or contracting to manufacture automatic belt tensioners with castings that contain designs or appearances with the style of ‘Rosette Design’ or the ‘Triple Ray Design’,” which are Dayco’s unique Trade Dress. While the lawsuit was pending, Dorman modified 15 of its 36 belt tensioner SKUs to eliminate the Rosette and Triple Ray features that had previously appeared on those tensioners, and the Consent Judgment and Injunction requires that Dorman (within 180 days) further modify five tensioner designs so that “Dorman’s current and Phase II product lines…, as modified…are not substantially or confusingly similar to Dayco’s belt tensioners including Dayco’s style of ‘Rosette Design’ or ‘Triple Ray Design’," Dayco noted.
With respect to certain Dayco Trademarks the Consent Judgment and Injunction orders: “Beginning 90 days from the entry of this Consent Judgment, Dorman shall use the symbol ‘®’ any time Dorman uses a Dayco part number that is registered as a trademark with the federal registry on any of Dorman’s packaging or promotional materials. Dorman shall also note on its packaging or promotional materials that the trademark is owned by Dayco.”
The Consent Judgment and Injunction also orders that Dorman is “permanently enjoined from using the following phrases, individually or in combination, or any reasonably colorable variation of them in advertising, sales promotion or distribution of its automatic belt tensioners, as Dorman is not an OE supplier:
a) ‘OE Solutions,’
b) ‘OE Quality,’
c) ‘OE Performance,’ and
d) ‘All SAE Specifications.’”
Under the terms of the Consent Judgment, Dorman will be ordered to make a payment to Dayco; both Dayco and Dorman will bear their own legal fees and costs.
The Consent Judgment and Injunction and a separate Settlement Agreement permanently settle this Consolidated Action, which incorporates both Dayco’s lawsuit against Dorman and Dorman’s countersuit.
Dayco Products’ policy is that all intellectual property that has been developed or acquired by Dayco shall be protected to the maximum extent permitted by law. All intellectual property rights obtained by Dayco will be actively enforced, the company said.
