IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Mass.: Sterilite preserves $5.2 million trade dress verdict against household products competitor, attorney fees denied, (Jul 20, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

Evidence supported the jury's finding that trade dress infringement led to the loss of Walmart business, but the case was not exceptional enough to warrant attorney fees.

Ruling on post-trial motions in a trade dress infringement lawsuit, a federal district court in Massachusetts denied motions filed by both Sterilite Corporation, a manufacturer of household storage and organization products, and Olivet International, Inc., a competing supplier of plastic household goods, following a jury verdict finding Olivet liable for willful trade dress infringement and tortious interference. The court declined to overturn a $5.2 million damages award, concluding that sufficient evidence permitted the jury to find that Olivet's infringement caused Sterilite to lose a lucrative Walmart wastebasket business opportunity. The court also rejected Sterilite's request for attorney fees under the Lanham Act, holding that despite the jury's finding of willful infringement, the litigation was not an "exceptional" case warranting fee shifting (Sterilite Corp. v. Olivet International, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-10327-JEK (D. Mass. Jul. 16, 2026)).

Dispute. Sterilite brought suit alleging that Olivet copied the trade dress of its plastic storage cabinets and drawer units and, by marketing those products to Walmart, improperly interfered with Sterilite's longstanding commercial relationship with the retailer. The litigation proceeded to a nine-day jury trial in April 2025. The jury found that Olivet had willfully infringed Sterilite's trade dress in its cabinets and drawers, committed common-law unfair competition, and tortiously interfered with Sterilite's business relationship with Walmart. It awarded Sterilite $5.2 million in damages on the tortious interference claim. After the verdict, Olivet renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), while Sterilite sought attorney fees under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act.

Causation. Olivet's principal challenge focused on causation. The company argued that Sterilite failed to prove its alleged trade dress infringement caused Walmart to shift its wastebasket business. According to Olivet, contemporaneous emails demonstrated that Walmart awarded it the wastebasket business because it satisfied the retailer's pricing and packaging requirements after Sterilite failed to meet those demands. In Olivet's view, the evidence therefore established independent business reasons for Walmart's purchasing decisions rather than any connection to the allegedly infringing cabinets and drawers.

The court, however, concluded that the jury was entitled to draw a different inference from the evidence presented at trial. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court found substantial circumstantial evidence supporting Sterilite's theory that Olivet first secured Walmart's confidence by successfully copying and supplying Sterilite's storage cabinets and drawers before obtaining the wastebasket business. Walmart had discussed purchasing Olivet's wastebasket products months earlier but declined to do so. Only after Walmart committed to replacing Sterilite's cabinets and drawers with Olivet's competing products and approved those designs did it approach Olivet regarding wastebasket products. Within weeks of approving the cabinet and drawer designs, Walmart initiated discussions about wastebaskets and later committed to purchasing those products after Olivet began manufacturing and shipping the cabinets and drawers.

The court also relied on testimony from Olivet's chief growth officer, who described the wastebasket contract as an example of the company having to "prove" itself before obtaining additional opportunities from Walmart. Combined with the sequence of events, that testimony allowed the jury to reasonably infer that Olivet's successful sale of the infringing cabinets and drawers demonstrated its capabilities to Walmart and directly led to the award of the wastebasket business. Although Olivet pointed to evidence supporting an alternative explanation, questions of proximate causation generally belong to the jury. Because reasonable jurors could conclude that Walmart would not have awarded the wastebasket business absent Olivet's infringing conduct, the court held that judgment as a matter of law was inappropriate.

Attorney fees. Sterilite separately sought attorney fees as the prevailing party under the Lanham Act, arguing that Olivet's willful infringement, intentional copying, inconsistent testimony during litigation, discovery misconduct, and broader business practices rendered the case exceptional. The court disagreed.

Applying the Supreme Court's framework in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc., 572 U.S. 559 (2014), the court concluded that the totality of the circumstances did not distinguish the case from ordinary trademark litigation. Although the jury found willful infringement, First Circuit precedent makes clear that willfulness alone does not automatically justify attorney fees. The court emphasized that Olivet presented objectively reasonable arguments throughout the litigation regarding functionality, secondary meaning, willfulness, and causation. Those arguments were substantial enough to survive summary judgment and Rule 50 motions, demonstrating that Olivet's litigation position was not frivolous or objectively unreasonable.

The court likewise rejected Sterilite's reliance on Olivet's litigation conduct. While Olivet initially denied copying during discovery, later admitting at trial that it intentionally copied Sterilite's cabinet and drawer designs, the court observed that intentional copying is only one factor relevant to secondary meaning and, by itself, did not make the litigation exceptional. Similarly, although Olivet unsuccessfully advanced certain legal theories concerning functionality and was required to respond to several motions to compel during discovery, those circumstances did not reflect the type of egregious or oppressive conduct necessary to justify fee shifting. The court further concluded that a previously entered permanent injunction barring future infringement adequately served any deterrent purpose, eliminating the need for attorney fees as an additional sanction.

Accordingly, the court denied both Olivet's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and Sterilite's motion for attorney fees, leaving intact the jury's findings of willful trade dress infringement and tortious interference, as well as the $5.2 million damages award in Sterilite's favor.

The Case is No. 1:22-cv-10327-JEK.

Judge: Kobick, J.

Attorneys: Charlotte Geaghan-Breiner (WilmerHale LLP) for Sterilite Corp. Brian A. Comack (Amster Rothstein & Eberstein, LLP) for Olivet International, Inc.

Companies: Sterilite Corp.; Olivet International, Inc.

Cases: Trademark MassachusettsNews