How to IRAC a Case Issue Rule Analysis Conclusion

Issue What is the question presented to the court? What are the parties “fighting” about? Whether the D owed P a duty of care?

Rule Determine what the relevant rules of law are that the court uses to make its decision Case law Statutes Other?

Analysis This may be the most important portion of the brief The court will examine the facts in the light of the rule Look at all “sides” and “arguments” How the court picks the relevant facts given the rule of law?

Conclusion What was the final outcome of the case Also called the “Holding”

The title of the case Title in italics HI Limited Partnership v. Winghouse of Florida, Inc., 347 F. Supp 2d 1256 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

Let’s IRAC For ONE of the issues in the case

Issue Whether the owner of “Hooters” sports bar and grill has a cause of action against Winghouse for trade dress infringement, based on the “Hooters Girl?”

Rule To prevail on a claim of trade dress infringement, a plaintiff must prove: “1) its dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning, 2) its trade dress is primarily non-functional, and 3) the defendant’s trade dress is confusing similar.” Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir. 1986).

Analysis Hooters has represented that the Hooters Girl is not a marketing tool, but is predominantly to provide vicarious sexual recreation, to titillate, entice, and arouse male customers’ fantasies. In other words, this functionality disqualifies the Hooters Girl from trade dress protection.

Analysis con’t Even if the Hooters Girl were not primarily functional, her status as trade dress derives from her distinctive orange and white uniform. If Hooters could stop Winghouse from using that particular color and combination, then it could prevent any other competitor from using any color combination of tank top and short. This would be an impermissible burden on competition – perhaps a monopoly.

Analysis con’t The differences between the restaurants’ trade dress are so marked that no reasonable jury could find there exists a likelihood of confusion. The Winghouse Girl, with her black tank top and black running shorts, is not a “knockoff” of the Hooters Girl.

Conclusion The Hooters Girl is not entitled to trade dress protection because the evidence establishes to a legal certainty that the Hooters Girl is primarily functional.