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
The Easter eggs showing up is pretty solid evidence
Map makers used to do this to catch people ripping off their work, looks like dbrand made a solid decision in doing the same (though probably not intentionally)
I’m still bummed I can’t take a vacation to Frisland :(
These are called fictitious entries. Dictionaries and encyclopedias do this too.
deleted by creator
Yeah fuck dbrand but I think they have a good open and shut case here
What did dbrand do? I thought they were well liked
Some people get all butthurt over their irreverent marketing style
Not what I was talking about but hey you do you
deleted by creator
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.
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
Their cases are of spectacular quality. They maintain great shape after years of use. My oldest in current service is 4 years old.
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.
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:
- Techlinked “dbrand was ROBBED” https://youtu.be/2yEE34BeBnA?si=i0oKsJRV8CQUs4P0
- JerryRigEverything “I’VE BEEN ROBBED” https://youtu.be/byfWscC87Vg?si=XJosK1Ubor5fWueW
- Engadget “Dbrand is suing Casetify for allegedly stealing its casd and skin designs” https://www.engadget.com/dbrand-is-suing-casetify-for-allegedly-stealing-its-case-and-skin-designs-221012321.html
- dbrand “Casetify stole our products. Now we’re suing them.” https://twitter.com/dbrand/status/1727721586856222893
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…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.
Copyright infringement is also known as intellectual property theft. I still disagree with his choice of video title.
“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”.
I thought IP just referred to something you can’t physically steal and instead copy.
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.
I always considered it like thought property, not exactly tangible and the closest you could do is copy it.
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.
I mean. Literally, literally means figuratively now. People look at DVDs and say they’re not a digital copy when they are written digitally. Words are fluid and contextual so to throw out half a phrase is to throw out the ability to understand it.
Property is a system of rights that gives people legal control of valuable things,[1] and also refers to the valuable things themselves. -Property Wiki
An intellectual property would then logically follow it is a valuable thing or idea that is then legally controlled.
You’re getting downvoted because people don’t like the way the real world works.
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?
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature: fans are there to warm up the battery when you type outside in winter
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!
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.
Casetify has always felt shitty to me.They sell 45$+ cases with ugly customization and shitty print quality. Now this plagiarism too. Lol
But i see tiddies
Where
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).
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.
If only these multinational brands had consulted this random guy about copyright law instead of trusting their lawyers. Idiots are muckin about blind.
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…
deleted by creator
That ship sailed with the Reddit migration.
