Fiskars vs. Woodland Tools: a case study
Back in the Spring of 2022, employees of garden-tool manufacturer Fiskars noticed a new competitor on the shelves of Blain’s Farm & Fleet and other major retailers. That new brand was Woodland Tools.
The Fiskars employees noticed something else: some Woodland Tools products were strikingly similar to Fiskars’ garden pruners, loppers, herb snips and tree trimmers. And later came the discovery that the Woodland Tools brand leaders consisted of former Fiskars employees.
Fiskars sued. Woodland Tools countersued.
And on Oct. 30, Woodland Tools released a victory press release. “Woodland Tools Prevails in False Advertising Trial Against Competitor Fiskars.” Not only had a judge previously ruled in favor of Woodland and had cleared it of all of Fiskars’ allegations, but Woodland’s counterclaim of false advertising by Fiskars for several of its products were largely successful.
In the recent press release, Mike Kollman, who co-founded Woodland Tools with Keegan Nesvacil, a former Fiskars employee, stated: ”Though our team at Woodland Tools did not initiate litigation with Fiskars, we are grateful to have prevailed on our counterclaims of false advertising. Protecting consumers from misleading advertising is essential to maintaining trust in our industry, and we're pleased with the outcome, which supports transparency and fairness for everyone."
Efforts to reach Fiskars for comment on the case were unsuccessful. But court documents reveal hard feelings from the company founded in Finland in 1649. The complaint spells out the allegations. “In spring of 2022, Fiskars noticed newcomer Woodland Tools, Inc. and, despite being new, Woodland Tools was able to place its garden tool products in large retail chains.”
Fiskars posited that Woodland Tools “was formed not to compete through innovation, but to copy Fiskars and free ride on Fiskars' investments in its products, customers, and business.”
In the complaint, Fiskars elaborates: “Formed by a former Fiskars employee, Woodland Tools actively recruited Fiskars employees in order to acquire the knowledge and information they possessed related to Fiskars’ business practices, confidential information, and trade secrets. Woodland Tools used this information to gain an unfair competitive advantage, improperly exploiting Fiskars’ success. In addition, Woodland Tools deliberately copied Fiskars’ product designs and marketing strategy despite representing to consumers that it was responsible for its designs.”
None of it stuck in court. However, the summary judgment permitted Woodland Tools’s counterclaims to proceed. These included claims for the invalidity of Fiskars’ patents, and false advertising related to cutting power and country of origin.
In a blog post on the case, legal scholar Rebecca Tushnet, who is a Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard Law School, offers more context:
"Fiskars alleged that Woodland engaged in false advertising when it described its Regular Duty Bypass Pruner as 'designed in the USA' because Woodland actually copied Fiskars’s version of the tool—which would mean that Woodland did not design its tools at all. Fiskars presented no evidence of consumer deception, and didn’t show literal falsity. Woodand’s founders testified that they designed at least some part of every Woodland product in the United States, and Fiskars does not offer any evidence to contest that testimony.”
Regarding Woodland's counterclaims, Tushnet explains:
"Fiskars advertises some of its products as having 'up to 3x more cutting power.' Woodland alleged that this statement and similar '2x' or '3x' power-based claims were ambiguous and misleading to consumers because the advertisements/packages didn’t identify what other tools Fiskars’s tools are more powerful than. Ambiguity means consumer confusion evidence is required.”
As for the "Made in USA" claims, Tushnet writes: "As to one product, Fiskars admitted it was designed in Finland. And Fiskars didn’t identify multiple reasonable interpretations of 'designed.' In the context of manufacturing a product, design means to 'decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing or it.’”
In a statement to HBSDealer.com, Prof. Tushnet provides more clarity regarding the legality of companies engaging in “copycat” product practices. In an email, she shared:
“In general, without a valid design patent or other intellectual property right, it's completely legitimate to copy other products in order to compete with the original seller. Competition is generally a good thing in U.S. law, because it encourages lower prices and better products. Trademark and valid design patents, as well as utility patents, remain available.”
As for the Fiskars vs. Woodland Tools dispute, Tushnet explains: “It's worth noting that the new competitor successfully challenged the truth of some of the established brand's claims in its counterclaims—new market entrants can be bad actors, but so can established ones.”
