Debate over the significance of Polaroid's square picture style intensifies as legal battles between camera manufacturers escalate after decades.
In a long-standing legal battle, Fujifilm and Polaroid are locked in a dispute over the use of instant film formats, with the case dating back to 2017. The court has been examining whether Fujifilm's Instax Square film infringes on Polaroid's intellectual property, which includes two trademarks.
The lawsuit was initially filed by Fujifilm in response to Polaroid's claims of trademark infringement and requests for licensing payments. At the heart of the matter is the white border on instant films, a point of contention between the two companies. Fujifilm argues that the border is functional, while Polaroid maintains it's an aesthetic feature integral to the brand's reputation.
The company that signed license agreements for the use of the Polaroid film format in 2011 is Impossible Project, which later became Polaroid Originals. This complicates the case, as it questions whether Polaroid abandoned its rights when it stopped producing film in 2008. However, Polaroid argues that a statement from the new owner and licensing deals as early as 2011 made it clear that Polaroid intended to resume the use of that format.
Common law rights describe "abandonment of a mark", where three years of non-use and lack of intent to resume use "constitute a forfeiture of a property right". Fujifilm claims that Polaroid abandoned its rights when it stopped producing film in 2008, but this is a point of debate in the ongoing case.
The court has also looked at an email from a Fujifilm executive expressing uncertainty about the difference between the two films. Furthermore, the case goes beyond whether Instax Square is different enough from the original Polaroid Square film, as it also involves discussions about the design patent for Instax Square, filed by Fujifilm in 2017, which implies that the design is aesthetic, not functional.
The judge granted the motion for dismissal for the elements of the case dealing with the film's promotional materials. However, the judge denied Fujifilm's request for a summary judgment on the remainder of the trademark infringement claims, deeming there's enough of a dispute for the case to go to trial.
Hillary K. Grigonis, with over a decade of experience writing about cameras and technology, leads the US coverage for Digital Camera World. Her work has appeared in various publications like Business Insider, Digital Trends, Pocket-lint, Rangefinder, The Phoblographer, and more. Grigonis has been closely following the developments in this case and provides insightful analysis on the implications for the photography industry.
As the court date for the trial has not yet been announced, the outcome of this case remains uncertain. Regardless, it's clear that the future of instant film formats and the intellectual property rights surrounding them are at stake in this significant legal battle.
