Whirlpool Corporation Et Al V. Shenzhen Sanlida Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. Et Al

Case Background

On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff  Whirlpool Corporation filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, Texas Eastern (Case number: 2:22cv27). This case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

Cause

Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Properties, Inc. filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Shenzhen Sanlida Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Avoga Technology Co., Ltd. Whirlpool alleged that both Defendants deliberately copied the iconic design of its KitchenAid stand mixers. The company claimed that Defendants sold these look-alike products through major online marketplaces, including Amazon and Wayfair.

Whirlpool had used the KitchenAid trademark since 1919 and built significant goodwill over the years. The company asserted that Defendants did not create unique stand mixer designs. Instead, they allegedly replicated the distinctive aesthetic of KitchenAid stand mixers. Whirlpool stated that Defendants’ mixers incorporated key design elements, such as a bullet-shaped head, sloped neck, rounded edges, and a signature attachment hub.

By introducing these nearly identical products into the market, Defendants allegedly misled consumers. Whirlpool argued that Defendants attempted to capitalize on its brand’s reputation without developing their own original designs.

Injuries

Whirlpool contended that Defendants’ trademark infringement caused direct harm to its business. The company claimed that the presence of infringing products in the marketplace led to consumer confusion. It further argued that the inferior quality of Defendants’ mixers damaged KitchenAid’s brand value. Consumers who unknowingly purchased these mixers might associate their dissatisfaction with Whirlpool’s products, harming its reputation.

Whirlpool also stated that Defendants’ unauthorized use of its well-established trade dress and trademarks diluted its brand identity. The company argued that Defendants unfairly benefited from its extensive investments in advertising, product development, and brand recognition. Additionally, Whirlpool claimed that Defendants’ actions made it harder to maintain exclusive control over its market presence.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Whirlpool Corporation | Whirlpool Properties, Inc.
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Marc Lorelli | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Chanille Carswell | Chelsea Elizabeth Pasquali | Melissa Richards Smith
  • Defendant(s): Shenzhen Sanlida Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. | Shenzhen Avoga Technology Co. Ltd
    • Counsel for Defendants: Tao Liu | Dandan Pan | Ruoting Men | Tianyu Ju | Wei Wang | Yu-Hao Yao

Claims

Whirlpool pursued legal action under multiple provisions of the Lanham Act, including federal trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), trade dress infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), and trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)). The company also asserted claims under Texas state law for common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, and injury to business reputation.

Whirlpool sought a court order preventing Defendants from selling the allegedly infringing stand mixers. It also requested financial compensation, including damages, an accounting of Defendants’ profits, and attorneys’ fees. The company emphasized that Defendants engaged in deliberate and willful trademark infringement. As a result, Whirlpool argued that it deserved enhanced damages under federal law.

Defense

Defendants Shenzhen Sanlida Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Avoga Technology Co., Ltd. denied Whirlpool’s trademark infringement allegations. They argued that their stand mixers did not infringe upon Whirlpool’s intellectual property. Defendants further claimed that Whirlpool improperly used trademark laws to monopolize the kitchen appliance market.

They asserted that their mixers, sold under the CookLee and PHISINIC brands, featured distinct design elements. Defendants maintained that the shape and structure of their products served functional purposes rather than acting as trademarks. They pointed to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records and argued that Whirlpool’s trademark registrations should be invalid due to the functional nature of the claimed designs.

Defendants also contended that Whirlpool engaged in anti-competitive conduct. They alleged that Whirlpool used litigation to stifle competition and maintain a monopoly over countertop stand mixers. Defendants further claimed that Whirlpool previously settled similar lawsuits against other manufacturers to eliminate competition.

In their counterclaims, Defendants sought a declaratory judgment that Whirlpool’s trademarks were invalid and unenforceable. They also asked the Court to rule that their stand mixers did not infringe Whirlpool’s intellectual property. Additionally, Defendants accused Whirlpool of unfair competition and monopolistic practices under the Sherman Act. They requested damages for lost sales, litigation costs, and reputational harm.

Jury Verdict

On January 29, 2025, The jury awarded Whirlpool $25,000,000.00 in compensatory damages for the actual harm it suffered from the Defendants’ conduct. Additionally, the jury found that the Defendants had made profits of $2,045,644.00 from their infringement of the ‘158 Trademark. The total monetary award determined by the jury amounted to $27,045,644.00.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com