Law 227: Trademarks &Law 227: Trademarks &Unfair CompetitionUnfair Competition

Trade DressJune 30, 2009

Jefferson Scher

TM & Unfair Comp — Day 10TM & Unfair Comp — Day 10AgendaAgenda

•Trade DressWhat is it?Requirements for Protection

DistinctivenessFunctionality

LOC AnalysisRegistration as a trademark

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)False Designation of Origin, etc.False Designation of Origin, etc.

•Section 43(a)(1) encompasses many potential causes of action(A) Likelihood of confusion (FDO)

For unregistered marks and trade namesFor “trade dress,” whether registered or

unregistered(B) False advertising

Materials in Chapter 8.B

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade DressTrade Dress

•What is “trade dress”?

•How, if at all, does it differ from a trademark?

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade DressTrade Dress

•DistinctivenessAbercrombie spectrumSeabrook: is the asserted dress —

A common basic shape or design; unusual or unique in the field; a mere refinement of commonly used ornamentation

Capable of creating a distinct commercial impression (separate from wording on package)

Secondary Meaning

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade DressTrade Dress

•NonfunctionalityA feature is functional if any are true —

Essential to use or purpose of the articleAffects cost or quality of the articleProtection would impose a “significant non-

reputation-related disadvantage” on others– No comparable alternatives– Protection would hinder effective competition

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade Dress — Distinctiveness — Trade Dress — Distinctiveness — CasesCases

•Two Pesos v. Taco CabanaDress can be inherently distinctive

•Wal-Mart v. Samara BrothersDress can be inherently distinctive for

packaging (and Mexican restaurants)Dress cannot be inherently distinctive

for product designs (default if in doubt)

“one-piece seersucker outfits with appliqués of hearts, flowers,

fruits and the like”

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade Dress — Functionality — CasesTrade Dress — Functionality — Cases

•TrafFix Dev. v. Marketing DisplaysWorks better = functional, even if there

are alternatives (patent = works better)

•Tie Tech, Inc. v Kinedyne

•Eco Manufacturing v. Honeywell

•Qualitex v.Jacobson Products

•Aesthetic functionality?

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade Dress — Infringement and ReliefTrade Dress — Infringement and Relief

•Best Cellars casesDress asserted: 14 elements,

including:8 taste categories designated by (1) a

word, (2) a color, and (3) an icon;Display system creating a backlit “wall of

wine,” in light wood and stainless steel;Limited number of wines, mostly value-

priced, to appeal to wine novices

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade Dress — Infringement and ReliefTrade Dress — Infringement and Relief

•Best Cellars casesGrape Finds

Extensive copying, limited differences, same overall “wall of wine” appearance

Wine Made Simple

Significant copying, but also significant differences, particularly in materials and signage; Bacchus name quite different

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade Dress — Infringement and ReliefTrade Dress — Infringement and Relief

•Store brands/private label copiesConflicting results

Conopco v. May Dept StoresMcNeil Nutraceuticals v. Heartland

Are the courts getting it right in these cases?

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade Dress — Infringement and ReliefTrade Dress — Infringement and Relief

•Conopco v. May Dept StoresCan consider lack of actual confusion

after long concurrent use10 years coexistence with copy of

previous Vaseline Intensive Care dressPrecedent supports it: Oreck, 17 months

{seems short to me}; Amstar, 15 years; Life Industries, period not stated

Lanham Act Section 43(a)Lanham Act Section 43(a)Trade Dress — One More CaseTrade Dress — One More Case

•Kendall-Jackson v. E&J GalloLeaf design

Distinctiveness analysisSimilarity analysis

Bottle configuration: California lookFunctional?Descriptive?

Federal Trademark Federal Trademark RegistrationRegistrationTrade Dress as TrademarkTrade Dress as Trademark

•Is there a trademark here?

Federal Trademark Federal Trademark RegistrationRegistrationTrade Dress as TrademarkTrade Dress as Trademark

•Is there a trademark here?

Federal Trademark Federal Trademark RegistrationRegistrationTrade Dress as TrademarkTrade Dress as Trademark

•Examiner will be concerned with at least three issues (see TMEP §1202.02)

DistinctivenessEspecially for product configurations

FunctionalityExpect to be asked for any related

patents and advertising materialsUse as a trademark

Federal Trademark Federal Trademark RegistrationRegistrationFunctionalityFunctionality

•In re Howard Leight Indus.Functionality analysis

•In re Gibson GuitarFunctionality analysis

•In re SlokevageDistinctiveness analysisFunctionality issue?

TM & Unfair Comp — Up TM & Unfair Comp — Up NextNextTopics and Reading for Day 11Topics and Reading for Day 11

•Dilution — Thursday, July 2ndCh. 9, pp. 619-635, Supp. pp. 57-76Ch. 9, pp. 640-661Ch. 9, pp. 613-619 (opt)