I'm sure there's something more authoritative:
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu...
I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing.
(Random video of this)
http://www.clicknetwork.tv/watch.aspx?c=1&p=8&v=112
Its obviously in the interest of a manufacturer to create some confusion over the branding in order to produce more sales.
> http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu...
That's not a question of trade dress. Verizon sales representatives are well within their rights legally to push Android over iOS (contractually, maybe not, but that's a separate issue). Saying "X is better than an iPhone" is entirely different from saying "X is an iPhone". And actually, neither case is relevant to trade dress, which is about customer confusion due to product appearance, not customer confusion due to salespeople.
> I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing.
You'll note that the knockoff was branded as an iPhone. No one disputes that counterfeit devices are designed to confuse. That's why they're call counterfeit devices and not competing devices.
I'm not talking about technical differences. You can look at phone, or the box, and instantly recognize which one is an Apple product.
>Many people just want an iPhone, walk into a store, and end up buying some Android phone because they are told it's the same thing but cheaper.
On what planet do a salespeople try to mislead customers into buying less expensive products?
>That's what trade dress protection should prevent.
That is simply incorrect. Trade dress protection is to prevent customers from mistaking one product (and/or manufacturer) for another. If a customer understands that product X is not product Y, but believes that the two products are functionally equivalent, then that has nothing to do with trade dress protection.