Abbott Laboratories v. Revitalyte LLC, 0:23-cv-01449

Abbott Laboratories sued Revitalyte LLC for alleged trade dress and trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, false advertising, and dilution, centering on the Pedialyte product line.
Revitalyte served extensive written discovery (interrogatories and requests for production) to Abbott seeking information about Pedialyte’s trade dress, sales, communications, and other relevant topics.
Abbott objected to several interrogatories and refused to respond to specific ones, prompting Revitalyte to move to compel fuller responses.
Magistrate Judge Schultz granted in part and denied in part Revitalyte’s motion to compel; Revitalyte objected to the portions of the order denying its requests concerning certain interrogatories (Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 20).
The District Court reviewed the objections under a deferential standard, affirming the Magistrate’s order in part and modifying it in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Trade Dress Identification (Int. 1)	Abbott's response sufficiently identifies Pedialyte trade dress elements.	Response lacks specificity; elements like “bright colors” are too vague.	Overruled—Abbott's identification is sufficient under law.
Functionality and Cost/Quality Impact (Int. 3 & 4)	Analysis should focus on trade dress as a whole.	Each element’s impact on cost/quality should be separately addressed.	Overruled—No need to analyze elements individually; whole-dress analysis suffices.
Discovery of Oral Communications (Int. 6 & 7)	Business records satisfy the information sought.	Oral communications are not captured by business records and must be produced.	Sustained—Abbott must supplement to include oral communications relevant to these interrogatories.
Detailed Sales Data (Int. 20)	Total unit sales data suffices, given no claim for damages per product.	Per-product sales and revenue are needed for trade dress analysis.	Overruled—Total unit sales meet discovery needs for these claims.

United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (standard for clear error review of magistrate rulings)
Children’s Factory, Inc. v. Benee’s Toys, Inc., 160 F.3d 489 (Eighth Circuit’s approach to trade dress analysis as overall impression, not individual elements)
Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, Inc., 28 F.3d 863 (recognizes commercial success as potentially relevant to trade dress functionality)
Chase v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 926 F.2d 737 (definition of clear error standard)