I.TypesofTrademarksandtheRulesApplicabletoTheirQualifyingasTrademarks A.Overview

i.Commondefinitionoftrademark:A“source”identifier(evenifthesourceisanonymous).Theyaredefinedbywhattheydo,notwhattheyare.Ingeneralhowever,theytendtobesymbols(logos),words,numbers,phrases(slogans),colororcolorcombinations,and“tradedress”(productorservicefeatures,design,ornamentation,oranyothersensoryperceived“device”thatindicatestotheconsumerauniquesourceorsponsorofaproductorservice).

ii.Examples: ‐POMWonderful(bottledesign)

‐Tiffany(packagecoloranddesign)

‐Nike(logo)

‐T‐Mobile(merecolor,usedinnumerouswaysinadvertising)

‐Hershey(candybardesignof3x4rectangularsections)

‐Apple(iPhonetradedress)

Inallofthesecases,thetrademarkissomethingthataconsumerrecognizesasbeingcontrolledbyasingle“source”,andthatwhenevertheyseethetrademarktheycanbecertainthattheproductisrelatedinsomewaytothatuniquesource(whichmeansthatallofthegoodwillinthetrademarkistransferredtothisotherproduct,soconsumerscanmakebetterdecisionsaboutbuyingproducts–theirfeelingsaboutthetrademarkareusedtoformsomeopinionaboutthisnewproductbeforetheyeventryorconsumeit).It’susuallyeasiertounderstandtheseideasintherealmofwordtrademarksbutforthemoreexotictrademarks(oftenreferredtogenerallyas“tradedress”)therulesarenotasintuitive,howevertheyarenowclearlyset

accordingtovariouscases,somedecidedbytheU.S.SupremeCourt.Here’sasimpleexampletoillustratethatthisisreallya“knowitwhenyouseeit”typeofsituation.Doesthispolkadotdesigntellyouanythingaboutthesourceofthesneakers?

Howaboutthisplaiddesign?

Why?(Ihopeyouranswerswere‘no’and‘yes’) B.Howisatrademarkobtained?

i.Registration‐®(givesyoulegalpresumptionofvalidity)

ii.UnderCommonLaw‐TMorSM(youcanclaimyouown,butyouwon’tknowifyou’rerightuntilyousuesomeoneandJudgeorJuryagreeswithyou)

TheLegalTest:DistinctivenessorSecondaryMeaningII.WordMarks A.CategoriesofWordMarks i. Generic:referstothegenustowhichaparticularbrandedproductisaspecies.Canneverbetrademarks;examples:SUV/smartphone/Yo‐Yo/Ping‐Pong(gotcha!...thisisactuallyatrademarkfortabletennisequipment).

Genericide:LossofTrademark ‐Atrademarkbecomesgenericwhenitbecomesassociatedwitha thinginsteadofthesource. ‐EvidenceofGenericness: a.Owner’sowngenericuseoftheterm b.Third‐partygenericuseoftheterm c.Dictionaries d.Mediausage ‐Examples: a.Escalator b.Trampoline c.Aspirin

ii.Descriptive:immediatelyconveysinformationabouttheingredients,qualities, orcharacteristicsoftheproduct.Descriptivetermsarenotprotectableinitially,butcanbeprotectablewithashowingof“secondarymeaning” ‐Examples: a.ChapStick‐it’sforyourchappedlipsandisinstickformsoitsownerwasonlyabletoclaimitasatrademarkafteritcouldprovethatsufficientsalesandadvertisingchangedconsumerperceptionstothepointthatitfunctionedasabrand(i.e.ithassecondarymeaning). b.BestBuy

Evidencethatprovessecondarymeaning: a.Directconsumertestimony b.Consumersurveys c.Amount&mannerofadvertising d.Volumeofsales e.Length&mannerofuse f.Competitorsintentionalcopying c.NamesofPersons Generalruleisthatanameofapersonorasurnameisdescriptivewithoutsecondary

meaning.Thisisbecauseitispresumedthatanameissocommonthatitcannotidentifyasinglesourceofaproduct(i.e.thesourcecanbeanyoneofthepeople

havingthisname). PeaceablePlanetv.TyBeanieBabies

PeaceablePlanetsoldacamelstuffedanimalnamedNiles.LaterTysoldacamelBeanieBabiesalsonamedNiles.PeaceablePlanetsuedTyfortrademarkinfringement.

Thecourtdidn’tfollowthegeneralruleanddeterminedthatthename‘Niles’foracamelstuffedanimalcouldbeatrademarkwithoutashowingofsecondarymeaning,becauseinthisuniquecase,thenamereferstothecamelandnotthesourceoftheproduct. d.Geographictermsarealsodescriptivewithoutsecondarymeaning.Geographictermthatclearlyhassecondarymeaning:

iii.Suggestive:suggestsratherthandescribesanaspectofaproduct;requiresimagination,thought,andperceptiontoreachaconclusionastothenatureofthegoods.ThedifferencebetweendescriptiveandsuggestiveisperhapsthemostlitigatedandarguedissueattheUSPTO.Itnotoriouslyoftenseemstobepurelysubjectivewithcasesoftenbeingdecidedinunpredictableways. ‐Examples:

a. Coppertone

b.facebook

c.LinkedIn d.Twitter(“To utter a succession of light chirping or tremulous sounds”)

iv.Arbitrary:Anexistingwordappliedinunfamiliarwayorcontrarytonormalmeaning.Suchwordscanbetrademarksimmediatelyandaresaidtobe“inherentlydistinctive”(thecategorythatALLtrademarks,whetherwords,logos,orproductdesignsandpackaging,mustfallintotoreceiveprotection). ‐Examples(words):

a.Apple b.Google(averylargenumber…orisitsuggestive?) c.Nickelodeon(anoldmusicplayingdevice) v.Fanciful:Acoinedwordthathasnoothermeaningbutthetrademark.Alsoinherentlydistinctive.The“strongest”trademarks(giventhebroadestscopeofprotectionbythelaw) ‐Examples(words): a.Xerox b.XK

iii.Non‐wordmarksandtradedress

A. DistinctivenessofNon‐WordMarksi. StarIndustriesv.Bacardi

IstheGeorgiOatrademark(i.e.isitinherentlydistinctive?).Can’tusethecategoriesforwordmarksbecausetheymakenosense(althoughinsomecases,theycan,aswhereapictureofanotherwisedescriptivewordcanbeconsidereddescriptive).Thetestfordesignmarksandproductpackagingisasfollows: Whetherthedesignisacommonbasicshapeordesign; whetheritisuniqueorunusualinaparticularfield;whetheritisa mererefinementofacommonlyadoptedandwell‐knownformof ornamentationofgoods;andwhetherthemarkiscapableof creatingacommercialimpressiondistinctfromtheaccompanying words(ifany).(the“SeabrookTest”)TheCourtheldthatGeorgi’sOdesignwasnotacommonbasicshapebutthatithadatleasttheminimalamountofstylizationtorenderitinherentlydistinctive.Italsoheldthatitstoodonitsownsufficientlyonthebottlethatitcouldbeprotectedbyitselfasatrademarkapartfromtherestofthebottlegraphics,etc.UnfortunatelyforGeorgi,theCourtfurtherheldthatalthoughthismarkwasprotectable,Bacardi’suseofasimilarorangeOwasnotlikelytocauseconsumerconfusionandthereforewasnotaninfringement. B.TradeDress&Distinctiveness

TradeDressreferstothelookofaproductoritspackaging,includingthedesign,colors,ornamentationandshapeoftheproductitself.Itmightbetheoveralldesignofaproductormerelyaparticulardistinctivefeatureofit.

i)MakersMarkvDiageo

Afternineyearsoflitigation,DiageofinallylosttheirfightwhentheSixthCircuitCourtofAppealsruledthatMaker’sMarkhasavalidtrademarkforitsreddrippingwaxsealtrademarkandthatDiageo,theowneroftheJoseCuervobrandhadtoceaseusingasimilarreddrippingwaxseal.ThistrademarkhasbeenregisteredtoMaker’sMarksincethemid1990sbutasalegalmatterwasstillsubjecttoattackonthegroundsof“functionality”.Diageoinsistedthatatypeoffunctionality,knownas“aestheticfunctionality”allowedJoseCuervotodisregardtheMaker’sMarktrademark.Accordingtothedoctrineofaestheticfunctionality,therearecertainproductfeaturesthat,ifgiventrademarkstatus,wouldputcompetitorsatasignificantnon‐reputationaldisadvantageinthemarketplaceifitcouldnotusethattrademark.Thisdoctrinehaslimitedapplicability.AgoodexampleofaestheticfunctionalitycomesfromacasewherethemanufacturerofblackoutboardboatenginestriedtoclaimtrademarkrightsinitsblackcoloredenginesbuttheCourtfoundthatblackwasaestheticallyfunctionalbecauseblackenginesappearedsmallerandmatchedboatcolors,thusofferingastrongcompetitiveadvantageandthereforecouldnotbemonopolizedasatrademark.TheCourteasilydismissedthisdoctrineinthecaseofthereddrippingwaxseals,whichofferednocompetitiveadvantageapartfromreputational.

LandmarkSupremeCourtCasesonTradeDress:ii. TwoPesos,Inc.v.TacoCabana(1992)PlaintiffanddefendantwerebothMexicanrestaurantswithbrightcolorsandsimilarrestaurantdesigns.TacoCabanaclaimedtheentirelookofitsrestauranttobetheirtradedress.Thiscaseresolvedaquestionthatwasopenatthetime:“Cantradedressthatisinherentlydistinctivebeprotectablewithoutashowingofsecondarymeaning?”ThelowercourtfoundthatTacoCabana’stradedresswasinherentlydistinctive(soitwaspresumedtobebytheSupremeCourt).TheCourtheldthat“inherentlydistinctive,nonfunctionaltradedressisprotectablewithoutevidenceofsecondarymeaning.”

iii. Qualitexv.JacobsonProducts(1995)

Qualitexwantedtrademarkprotectionforthegreen/goldcoloroftheirdry‐cleaningpresspad.TheSupremeCourtheldthatacoloralonecanberegisteredasatrademark,butacolorcanneverbeinherentlydistinctiveandproofofsecondarymeaningwillalwaysberequired.Itdismissedtheargumentsagainstprotectingcolor,namelythatcolorscouldbedepletedinagivenmarket(Answer:Thisisnotapracticalconcernbecauseforproductsthatarecommonlycolored,provingsecondarymeaningwouldbeverydifficultifnotimpossible)andshadeconfusion–theideathatcourtswouldhaveahardtimecomparingsubtlydifferentshadesofcolor(Answer:Courtsdothesamethingallthetimewithwordmarks).

iv. Wal‐Martv.Samara(2000)

Theissueinthiscasewaswhatisthetestforinherentlydistinctiveproductdesign(recallinTwoPesostheissuewaswhethertradedressingeneralcouldbeinherentlydistinctive).Samarawantedatrademarkfortheir“lineofspring/summerone‐pieceseersuckeroutfitsdecoratedwithappliquésofhearts,flowers,fruits,andthelike.”

TheCourtheldthatwhenit’snotcleariftradedressisproductpackagingorproductdesign,itshouldbepresumedtobeproductdesign.Itfurtherheldthatproductdesigncannotbeinherentlydistinctiveunderanycircumstancesandsecondarymeaningmustbeproven.ThecasewasremandedtoseeifSamaracouldprovesecondarymeaningexisted.Sonow,thelawwasfinallyclearonthetestsfordistinctivenessfordifferenttypesoftrademarks.

TradeDressDistinctiveness

ProductPackaging Unknown ProductDesignEXAMPLE Pombottleshape=

sourceindicator‐notmeredecoration

Uggboots

RULE Capableofbeinginherentlydistinctive(andthereforeprotectablewithoutevidenceofsecondarymeaning)

Courtsequateuncertaintywithproductdesign(TwoPesos)

Likecolor,notcapableofbeinginherentlydistinctive;protectableonlywithevidenceofsecondarymeaning

TEST InherentDistinctivenesstests:Seabrook(packaging)Abercrombie(words)

Notest(can’tbeinherentlydistinctive)

OtherCases:

iv. InReSlokevage(2004)

Itwasjustamatteroftimebeforesomeonewouldtryarun‐aroundoftheruleestablishedbyWal‐Martbyclaimingthattheirtrademarkwasnotproductdesignatall.InthiscasetheApplicantforregistrationofatrademarkthatcombinedthewords“FlashDare”withaflaponthebackpocketofjeansthatwhenunbuttoned,exposedthewearer’s,well,whateverwasunderthejeans.Plaintiff,Slokevage,claimedthatthebackpocketsofherjeanswereproductpackagingandthereforecouldbeinherentlydistinctive.SlokevagesaidthatconsumersusuallyassociatethebackpocketsofjeanswithsourceandbecauseherbackpocketsweredifferentconsumerswouldautomaticallyidentifyherasthesourceTheCourtdidn’tbuythisandclassifiedthistrademarkasproductdesign.Sonow,productdesigndoesn’thavetobetheoveralldesignofaproduct,butmerelyaminorfeatureofaproduct.