TP-Link Systems Inc. v. Shenzhen Cudy Technology CO., LTD.
2:25-cv-00057
D. Nev.May 21, 2025Background
- TP-Link Systems, Inc. manufactures wireless network equipment and sued Shenzhen Cudy Technology Co., Ltd., a competitor founded by former TP-Link executives, for trade dress infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.
- TP-Link asserts trade dress rights in the visual design of its Archer router line and alleges Cudy is selling confusingly similar products.
- TP-Link sought a preliminary injunction to bar Cudy from making or selling the allegedly infringing products in the United States during the pendency of the case.
- The core contested feature is a black, gridded top casing on the wireless routers, which TP-Link argues is a distinctive visual element, whereas Cudy argues it is functional for ventilation.
- The court also considered motions regarding deadlines and timely filing of appendices, with those being granted.
- On May 21, 2025, the court denied TP-Link's motion for a preliminary injunction after full briefing and oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade dress is nonfunctional | Archer router's design is purely aesthetic | Gridded top serves utilitarian (venting/cooling) function | Design has utilitarian advantage; TP-Link failed burden |
| Irreparable harm | Will lose goodwill and reputation if injunction denied | Harm to TP-Link is speculative, no proof of actual injury | No evidence of irreparable harm; presumption inapplicable |
| Balance of hardships | Harm to TP-Link outweighs harm to Cudy | Cudy would be substantially harmed by losing US market | Harm to Cudy outweighs speculative harm to TP-Link |
| Public interest | Public interest in avoiding confusion | Competition served by keeping functional designs available | Public interest in competition prevails |
Key Cases Cited
- TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (product design must be nonfunctional to be protected as trade dress)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (sets four-part test for preliminary injunctions)
- Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1009 (functional product features are not entitled to trade dress protection)
- Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415 (preliminary injunctions maintain status quo and require specific factors)
- Disc Golf Ass'n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002 (factors for assessing product design functionality)