• 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    182
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dbrand has a really strong case here IMO, since they pretty heavily edit the internals and add a few easter eggs, which are still visible in Casetify’s final designs

    Dbrand discovered Casetify allegedly copied 117 different designs, down to the many digital manipulations it made to the images. Dbrand says it holds registered copyrights for each of these products, all of which were registered before Casetify’s product launch.

    Also, TIL:

    Disclosure: The Verge recently collaborated with Dbrand on a series of skins and cases

        • Alto@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Their marketing is just incredibly childish and brash. Doesn’t personally upset me, but it’s certainly never made me want to check out their products.

          • Otter@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair enough, I’ve heard good things about their quality and customer service (being great about replacements and technical issues) but there’s lots to choose from. There are others you can go to for the products

            • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Their cases are of spectacular quality. They maintain great shape after years of use. My oldest in current service is 4 years old.

        • Tier 1 Build-A-Bear 🧸@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ve personally had a few terrible customer service experiences over the years, to the point that I stopped buying from them. I’ve had years of experience selling phones, applying screen protectors, and skins, and sometimes d brand sends you one that straight up doesn’t fit. And even with pictures (I had one that was too small for the phone, hard to argue with that), they refuse to acknowledge it was the product’s fault and refuse refunds.

          I never got one but their airpods skin was ridiculous and close to impossible to install and they basically posted a snarky response saying how even though the product is perfect and the customers are all idiots, they’ll try to make it easier to install for our tiny brains.

          So I don’t really care that they have an “attitude” with advertising. I care that that attitude also permeates throughout all customer service experiences, and that they have this idea that they can do no wrong to the point that they refuse refunds to people who deserve them.

          So I’m not buying from them ever again, but I can’t deny they have a case here. That’s all I was saying, but the redditors yet again confuse the downvote button for the disagree button, but hey, they’re probably also the ones defending d brand so no surprise there.

  • thejevans@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is definitely shitty.

    Related: JerryRigEverything just came out with a video about this and titled “I got robbed” and called it theft a bunch of times. This is copyright infringement, maybe trademark infringement, but not “theft” or “robbery”. No property or money was taken from any party such that they no longer have access to it. It’s important to be accurate about this.

    Edit:

    Here is a list of all the media I’ve found surrounding this that falsely claims stealing, theft or robbery:

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I havent watched it yet but now I will not watch it for the blatant baiting.
      Thought it was about the bunker he was building…

      • 1984@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t watch it so I had no idea it was about this but the thumbnail and the click bait title made me unsubscribe from him.

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Copyright infringement is also known as intellectual property theft. I still disagree with his choice of video title.

      • thejevans@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Intellectual property” as a concept is designed to trick people into thinking copyright, trademark, and patent infringement are equivalent to theft. It’s an incorrect and pernicious use of the word “theft”.

          • thejevans@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Intellectual property is an umbrella term for copyright, patents, and trademarks used to make it sound like “property” is “stolen” when licensing agreements are violated.

              • thejevans@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The idea that it shares the same features as anything else we consider “property” is the problem, so why call it property? The only thing that one can “own” in this regime is the license itself, and that doesn’t go away just because someone violates its terms.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For anyone struggling to follow this:

    Dbrand makes stickers. These are edited scans of the inside of a laptop. Casetify has pretty brazenly copied that edited version. They swapped it around in a way that doesn’t even make sense, as the fans vents would be… in the middle of the bottom?

    • fl42v@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not a bug, it’s a feature: fans are there to warm up the battery when you type outside in winter

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Dbrand, the device skin company known for trolling brands like Sony and Nintendo, is waging a legal battle of its own.

    The company is suing rival Casetify over claims it blatantly copied Dbrand’s Teardown device skins and cases, which are made to look like the internals of whatever phone, tablet, or laptop you’ve purchased them for.

    In March, one user on X (formerly Twitter) pointed out that Casetify appeared to be reusing the image of the same internals across different phone models, which means they didn’t accurately represent the insides of each device they were sold for.

    “If CASETiFY had simply created their own Teardown-esque design from scratch, we wouldn’t have anything to take issue with,” Dbrand CEO Adam Ijaz tells The Verge.

    That’s why, instead of issuing a cease-and-desist order, Dbrand is hitting Casetify with a federal lawsuit in Canadian courts, where the company is based, and seeking eight figures in damages.

    Dbrand is also launching a brand-new set of X-ray skins across its entire portfolio today that are rather different from the Teardown ones — they’re black and white, captured at 50 micron resolution by a lab called Haven Metrology, and show details that wouldn’t be visible simply by removing the back cover of a phone, laptop, or gaming handheld.


    The original article contains 830 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • jopepa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My favorite part of this was X “(formerly Twitter)” even when a bot is most efficiently paraphrasing it’s still necessary to waste two words to clarify that stupid apps name.

  • jacktherippah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Casetify has always felt shitty to me.They sell 45$+ cases with ugly customization and shitty print quality. Now this plagiarism too. Lol

  • Overzeetop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    62
    ·
    1 year ago

    I guess printing a correct headline of “sued for copyright infringement “ isn’t click baity enough. Because that’s all it is. Dbrand is lucky they haven’t been sued by the board manufacturers for creating an unlicensed derivative work (which is what the case art is, just as the photo of a sculpture, even stylized, has been deemed derivative - especially when the reproduction is intended to represent the original).

    • deur@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      wtf stupid take is this? I bet you are so brilliant, so smart, that you have successfully managed to point out a hole that dbrand’s lawyers have completely missed! I’m sure the investors totally had absolutely zero concerns about that and never mandated some form of investigation… I’m sure dbrand has taken no action at any point to verify that their business dealings do not go afowl of the law. Thank GOD for brilliant people like you, showing the companies the way.

      • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If only these multinational brands had consulted this random guy about copyright law instead of trusting their lawyers. Idiots are muckin about blind.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dbrand is lucky they haven’t been sued by the board manufacturers for creating an unlicensed derivative work (which is what the case art is, just as the photo of a sculpture, even stylized, has been deemed derivative - especially when the reproduction is intended to represent the original).

      I think “lucky” is an overstatement but this is an interesting point and could be the knockoff company’s defense ie:

      we couldn’t have infringed their IP because they don’t own the IP

      But I think this line of defense would open both case makers up to a suit from the phone manufacturers. Dbrand is well familiar with IP issues with hardware OEMs though so I don’t know…