in the Lawsuit Fasa against Palymates -
A. FASA Has Established Original Expressions Of Ideas That Are Protected By The
Copyright Act
B. FASA Has Established That It Has Protectible Trade Dress Rights
III. FINDINGS OF FACT - Phase Three of Trial
A. The Development Of The EXO-SQUAD Toy Line By Playmates
B. FASA's Efforts To License Its BATTLETECH [**2] Designs To Tyco
C. FASA's Alleged Confusion Evidence
D. Playmates' Survey Evidence Established A Lack of Any Trade Dress Confusion
E. Playmates' Heavy Attack E-Frame Prototype Is Not Substantially Similar To
FASA's Mad Cat Design
F. Playmates' Marsala Light Attack E-Frame Toy Is
Not Substantially Similar to FASA's Black Hawk Design
G. Playmates' Livanus Light Attack E-Frame Is
Not Substantially Similar To FASA's Black Hawk Design
H. Playmates' Livanus Light Attack E-Frame Is
Not Substantially Similar To FASA's Bushwacker Design I. Playmates' General Shiva Light Attack E-Frame Is
Not Substantially Similar To The King Crab Design
J. Playmates' Alec DeLeon E-Frame Is
Not Substantially Similar To FASA's Koshi Design
K. Playmates' Alec DeLeon E-Frame Is
Not Substantially Similar To FASA's Daishi Design
L. Playmates' Maggie Weston Repair Light Attack E-Frame Is
Not Substantially Similar To FASA's Dasher Design
M. The Heavy Attack E-Frame Prototypes Of EXO-SQUAD Toys Were Independently Created
N.
The Development Of EXO-SQUAD Toys Draws Inspiration From Third-Party Designs And Designs And Properties Other Than BATTLETECH
O.
Specific, Non-Trivial Design Features Distinguish EXO-SQUAD From BATTLETECH IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -
Phase Three A. FASA Failed To Establish By A Preponderance Of The Evidence That Its Protectible Copyright Interests Were Copied By Playmates B. FASA Failed To Establish By A Preponderance Of The Evidence That There Is A Likelihood Of Confusion About The Source of EXO-SQUAD Toys C. Playmates' Inclusion Of A Picture Of Its Planned Heavy Attack E-Frame In Its 1993 Toy Catalog Did Not Constitute Unfair Competition