A Survey of Nontraditional Trademarks in the United States Linda K. McLeod

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Functionality and Distinctiveness Two key hurdles for protection of nontraditional marks: (1) Functionality If mark is functional, it is not entitled to protection (2) Distinctiveness Inherently distinctive Acquired Distinctiveness

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Functionality - Overview TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays Inc., (2001) Mark is functional if it is “essential to the use or purpose of the product or if it affects the cost of quality of the product.”

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Functionality – Burdens and Evidence Morton-Norwich Evidentiary Factors: (1)Existence of utility patent (even abandoned) that discloses utilitarian advantages (2)Advertising that touts utilitarian advantages (3)Availability of alternative designs (4)Whether design results from comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Inherent or Acquired Distinctiveness Seabrook Test for Inherent Distinctiveness:  Whether mark is a common basic shape or design  Whether mark is unique or unusual in field  Whether mark is merely a refinement of a commonly adopted and well-known form of ornamentation recognized by public for those goods  Whether mark is capable of creating a commercial impression separate from any word mark

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Acquired Distinctiveness Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co. (Fed Cir. 1998)  “[E]xact kind and amount of evidence necessary to establish such secondary meaning necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” Proof of Acquired Distinctiveness  Prior existing Principal Registration  Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce  Direct and circumstantial evidence

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Product Design - Functional Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2002), configuration of “conveyor guide rails” functional because cross-sectional design was competitively significant for use in “wet areas” of bottling plants Abandoned utility patent disclosed advantage Advertising touted design advantage

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Product Design - Functional M-5 Steel Mfg., Inc. v. O’Hagins Inc. (TTAB 2001)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Product Design – Functional In re Howard Leight Indus., LLC (TTAB 2006)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Product Design – Functional In re Richemont Int’l, S.A., (TTAB 2006)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Taste/Flavor - Functional In re N.V. Organon (TTAB 2006)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Color - Functional Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 1994)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada In re Orange Comm., Inc. (TTAB 1996) Colors yellow and orange functional for public telephones and booths because more visible at all times of day and emergency Color - Functional

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Color - Functional Saint-Gobain Corp. v. 3M Co. (TTAB 2007)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Color – Non-Functional Newborn Bros. & Co. v. Dripless, Inc. (TTAB 2002)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Color– Acquired Distinctiveness Reg. No (Oct. 23, 2007) fundraising, education, cancer research Reg. No (June 20, 2000) boxes for jewelry and goods Reg. No (Nov. 9, 2004) transportation and delivery services

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada 17 Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am., Inc., 2012 WL (2d Cir. Sept. 5, 2012)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada 18

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Examples of Color Marks

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Sound - Functional In re Vertex Group LLP (TTAB 2009)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Sound Marks – Inherently Distinctive Human Voice : Pillsbury Dough Boy Giggle Musical Themes : “I don’t wanna grow up, I’m a Toys R Us Kid” Various Sounds : the sound of burning methamphetamine Animal Sounds : Duck quacking word AFLAC Animal Sounds : lion roaring Electronic Sounds : a metallic resonating sound followed by two electronic beeps and followed by a mechanical ratcheting sound Single-note sounds : synthesized vibraphone- musical note B

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Sounds – Acquired Distinctiveness Reg. No (Sept. 8, 1998) for automatic produce misting units for delivering a timed water mist to fruits and vegetables in display cases

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Oliveira v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 251 F. 3d 56 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2001 Songs as a Sound Mark: The Girl from Ipanema Musical composition could not serve as a trademark for itself. Desired protection could be secured through copyright and/or contract law 23 Sounds

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Product Packaging Shape, color, closure, texture

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Product Packaging – Inherently Distinctive In re Creative Beauty Innovations, Inc. (TTAB 2000)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo N. Am., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012) 26 Product Packaging – Inherently Distinctive

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Reg. No (Oct. 17, 2006) for wine Product Packaging – Inherently Distinctive

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Van/Auto Trade Dress – Inherently Distinctive In re PRG Parking Mgmt., L.L.C. (TTAB 2003)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Motion – Inherently Distinctive Reg. No (Oct. 17, 1995) Reg. No (Sept. 2, 1997)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Scents – Acquired Distinctive In re Clarke (TTAB 1990), floral plumeria blossom fragrance for yarn Supp. Reg. No grapefruit, lavender, vanilla, peppermint scents for file folders, hanging folders, paper expanding files  Reg. No cherry and other scents for synthetic lubricants

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Holograms – (Some) Inherently Distinctive Clothing Charge card and credit card services Trading cardsPharmaceutical prescription pads Cosmetic products

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Uniforms – Not Inherently Distinctive In re Chippendales USA, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2010)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Three-dimensional Costume -Inherently Distinctive Reg. No (Dec. 21, 2010) for educational services

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Building Designs

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Building Interior/Exterior – Not Inherently Distinctive Supp. Reg. No (Oct. 9, 2007) for car washing and cleaning services Supp. Reg. No (Sept. 26, 2006) for restaurant service

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Building Interior/Exterior – Acquired Distinctiveness Reg. No (March 30, 1993) conducting a securities exchange and related stock market services, since 1903

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Building Interior/Exterior – Acquired Distinctiveness Reg. No (Nov. 10, 2009) - college sporting events

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada 38 Building Interior/Exterior Doyle v. Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant & Butik, Inc., Cancellation No Reg. No

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Motion – Acquired Distinctiveness Reg. No (Dec. 16, 2003)

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Human Gestures and Movements Reg. No (Dec. 12, 2006) for telecommunications services

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada 41 Human Gestures and Movements

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada 42 Human Gestures and Movements

2012 © Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Thank You! Linda K. McLeod Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.