## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 3519 G EO RGIA -P ACI FI C C O NSU M ER P RO D UC TS LP, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v.
K IMBE RL Y -C LA R K C OR PO RA T I ON, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:09- cv-02263

—V irgin ia M . Ken dall, Judge
.
A RGUED J UNE 6, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 28, 2011

Befo re K ANN E , E VANS, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . T o i l etpa per . Thi s ca se i s ab o ut toi l et paper. A re ther e m any o therthi ngs m ostpeop le use e ver y day but thi nk ve ryl i ttl e about? W e doubt i t. Butthe n a g ai n, o nl y a s el ec t f ew o fus wor ki n the ra re fi ed ai r i nhabi ted by to p-r ate i ntel l ect u al property l awy er s who spe ci al i ze i n pr es en tinga nd de f en di ng cl ai m s o funf ai r c o m pet i ti o n and tr ade m ar ki nfr i ng ement2 N o. 10

- 3519

un de r t he La nh a m Ac t, 1 5 U. S

. C. §§ 10 51 et seq
. And the l awy e r s o n b o t h s i de s o f t hi s di s pu t e a r e t r ul y f i rs tra te. Toge thert h ey cit e s om e 1 19 case s a nd 20 federa l sta tutes ( albei t with a l i ttl e ove rlap) i n thei r i ni ti al briefs. W e are told that du ring th e “ex p ed ited” d is cove ry p eriod lead ing u p t o the d istri ct cou rt de cision w e are cal l ed up on to re vi ew , som e 675, 000 pages ofd oc um ents w ere p rod uc ed and m ore tha n a d oze n w itn esses w ere deposed. That’ s qu i te a r eco rd co nsi deri ng, ag ai n, that th is case is abou t toil et p ap er. W e’ l l st ar t byi ntro du ci ng the co m bata nt s. I n the f ar cor ner, fro m an o ld cott on- produci ng st ate ( D ixie : “Iwish I w as in t h e l and ofco tto n, o l d ti m es ther e a re notf or got
ten
. ”) and head qu artered i n th e area (A t lan ta) w he re Sc ar let t O ’H ar a ro a m e d T ar a in M ar ga re t M itc h ell’s ep ic GoneWi t h theWi nd, w e have the Georg i a- Paci fi c Com pany. I m p or ta n t to thi s ca se, and m or e than a b i t i ro ni c, i s that th e n am e o f G eo rg ia-P ac ific’s flag sh ip to iletp ap er is Qu i l t e d N o rthern

. I n the nea r co r ne r, hea dqua r te r ed i n the nor th, i n N eenah, W i sco nsi n (j ust m in utes aw ay f ro m Gr e e n B a y ) , a n d a l o n gwa y fr o m th e l a n d o fc o t t o n, we have the Ki m ber l y- Clar k Cor pora ti on. I ro ni cal l y, i ts s i g na t ur e t o i l e tp a pe r b r a nd i s c a l l e d Cott on el l e. T he clai m i n th is case is th at a few of K im berly-Clark’s bran d s of t o ile t pa p er are i nfringing on Ge orgia-Pacifi c’s tr adem ar k desi gn. But aga i n, thi s ca se i s about toi l et paper, and w ho r eal l y pay s a tte nti on t o th e desi gn o n a ro l l of toi l et paper? The parti es, how eve r, ar e qu ick to i nf o r m us thati n a $ 4 bi l l i o n do l l ari ndus tr y , de si g ns ar e v er y i m port ant. M ar ketshar e a nd si gni fi cant pr ofi ts ar e ats ta k e. S o wi ththa t, we f o r g e o n.N o. 10

- 3519 3

A vi deo of a 2003 Quil t ed Northe rnadve rt i s em en tfea t ur i ng 1 t he q ui l t e r s i s a va i l a bl e a t : htt p: //www . yo utub e . c om/ wat c h? v= tt o iV q y 8 C 3 c& fea tu re = re la te d (la st v isi te d Ju n e 2 1 , 20 1 1 ). Georg i a- Paci fi c has been sel l i ng to i l et pap ersi nce 19 02. I n the ear l y 1 990s , i t r ebr an d ed it s toi l et paper as Quil ted N or ther n, em phasi zi ng a new di am ond-s haped em bos sed d esign on the tissu e, w hich giv e s it the ap p earan ce of a quil t. This desi gn

— re cogni zabl e f orthe com m er ci al s with cartoon q u ilt ers

— i s r efer r ed to a s th e “Qu i l te d Di amond 1 Desi gn. ” To prot ect the Qu i l ted Di am ond Desi gn, Geor gi aPaci fi c appl i ed f orand re cei ved se ver altra dem ar ks, co py r i g ht s, an d ut i l i ty an d des i g n pat en ts
. M o strel ev an t to thi s case ar e tr adem ar ks Reg. N os. 2, 710, 741 ; 1,77 8, 352; 1, 806, 076; and 1, 979, 345 and uti l i ty patents 5, 436, 057 ( ’ 057 p aten t); 5, 573,830 (’83 0 p aten t); 5, 597,639 (’639 pa ten t); 5 , 6 2 0 , 7 7 6 ( ’ 7 7 6 p a t e n t ) ; a n d 5 , 8 74 , 1 5 6 ( ’ 1 5 6 p a t e n t )

. The sam e l att i ce des i gns depi cted i n Geor gi a- Paci fi c’ s t ra dem ar ks appear in the fi ve uti l i ty patents.

Reg. N o . 2, 710, 741 Reg. N o . 1, 778, 352 Reg. N o . 1, 806, 076 Reg. N o . 1, 979, 345

‘ 057, ‘ 156, and ‘ 639 pate nts ‘ 77 6 a n d ‘ 83 0 p ate n ts4 N o. 10

- 3519

Geor gi a- Pac i fi c l at er fi l ed a nothe r s ui tag ai ns tKim ber l y- 2 C lark f or its intro d u ction of Scott E x tra So ft b ath tiss u e, also c l a i mi n g i t i n f r i n g e d t h e Qu i l t e d Di a mon d De s i gn. The d istrict j u d g e con solid ated the tw o a ction s. I n 200 8, Geor gi a Paci fi c di sco ver ed that K i m ber l y- Clar k, on e of i ts m ai n com peti tor s i n the toi l et paper i nd ustr y, ha d r ede si g ne d i ts Co tt o ne l le Ul tr a ba tht i ss ue a nd Sco tt K i m ber l y- Clar k Pr ofess i onal

. Both p ro du cts used a qui l ted desi gn wh i ch Geor gi a- Paci fi c be l i eve d to be ve r y s i m i l art o i ts Qui l te d Di amond Des i g n. Georg i a- Paci fi c unro l l ed thi s s uitag ai nst Kim ber l yCl ar k, a l l eg i ngunf ai r c o m pet i ti o n a nd trad em ar ki nf ri ngem ent under the Lanham A ct, f orKim berlyC lark’s introd u c t ion of its redes igned toil et p ap er. 2 Ki m be r l y - Cl ar kmoved f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t, a r g ui ng that Georg i a- Paci fi c’ s Qui l ted Di am ond Desi gn i s functi onaland theref or e ca nnot be pro tect ed as a r egi ste re d tr adem ar k. The di str i ct j ud ge agr eed and gr anted K i m ber l y- Clar k’ s m oti on. Geor gi a- Paci fi c now app eal s. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct j ud ge’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo , v i ewi nga l l f ac ts i n f av o r o f th e no nm o vi ng p ar ty
. Bui e v. Quad/ Gr ap hi c s , Inc. , 36 6 F

. 3d 496, 50 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)

. Su m m ar y j udg m en t i s appr o pr i at e wher e th e admi ss ibl e ev i den ce s ho ws tha t “ th er e i s no g en ui ne dispute as to a n y m ate ri alf act and the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(a). Theref or e, despi te the f act that the jud ge du ti full y pl i ed her opi ni on, we now wipe the sl ate cl ean a nd address Georg i a- Paci fi c’ s cl ai m s.N o. 10

- 3519 5 U nd er the L an ha m A ct, r egistration of a trad em ark c r e a t e s a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u mp t i o n th a tth e ma r ki s v a l i d, but the pre su m p tion “eva pora tes as so on a s e vi dence of i nval i dity i s pre sente d.” D oorSys t e m s , Inc
. v. P r o- Li neD oor Syste m s, Inc. , 83 F

. 3d 16 9, 17 2 ( 7th Ci r . 19 96 )

. Thu s, th e bur de n o f pr o o f o r i g i na t e s wi t h t he pa r t y s e e k i ng to i nv al i dat e th e r eg i st er ed m ar k

. Buti ftha t par tyc anput forw ard strong ev iden ce of fun ctiona lit y , the m ark ho l derc ar r i es a “ he av y b ur deno fs ho wi ngtha t th e f e at u re is n ot fu n c tio n al, for in st an c e b y s h ow in g t h at it i s m er el y a n or nam ental, i nci dental, o r ar b i tr ar y a spect ofthe devi ce. ” Traf Fix D evic es v. M a rketin g D i s p l a ys, Inc. , 532 U .S. 2 3 , 3 0 (20 01 ); Eco M anu f ac t ur i ng LLC v

. H o n eyw ell Interna tio na l, Inc., 357 F.3d 649, 653 (7th Cir. 2003 )

. H er e, the bu rd en of proo fl i es w i th Kim ber l yClar k, but K i m ber l y- Clar k c an shift that bur den to i ts opponent by pro du ci ng st ro ng ev i dence offuncti onal i ty. Georg i a- Paci fi c be gi ns by ar gui ng tha t sum m ar y j ud gm ent was i n ap propri ate bec ause functi onal i ty i s a n i ssue off act. W hi l e Geor gi a- Paci fi c i s co rr ect, we have re centl y hel d that the fu n c tional i ty ofan a sse rt ed desi gn c an be deter m i ned on sum m ar y j ud gm ent in appropria t e c as es . See Ja y F ran co & So ns, Inc. v. Fra nek, 6 1 5 F

. 3d 85 5, 85 7 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); se e also TrafFix , 532 U

. S. at34

- 35. G eorgia-Pacifi c also ar g ue s tha t its tradem arks are “in c on te st ab le” u n d er 1 5 U .S.C . § 10 65 . U n for tu n at ely f o r Ge o r g i a- Pa ci fi c, i nc o nt es tabl e i s no t i nv i nc ibl e; the Lanh am A ct l i sts a num bero faffirm ati ve defe nses an al l eg ed i nfr i ng erc anus e, i nc l udi ngs how i ngtha t th e m ar k i s “ functi onal

. ” See 15 U .S.C . § 11 15 (b )(8) ; Fra nek, 61 56 N o. 10

- 3519 F

. 3d at8 57
. As we e xpl ai ne d i n Fra nek, “ pat en t law a l o ne prot ects useful desi gns fro m m i m i cry ; the functi onali ty doctr i ne pol i ces the di vi si on o fr esponsibi l i ti es between patent and tra dem ar k l aw by invalid at i ng m ar ks on u seful desi gns. ” Id. ; see also Qu a l i t e x C o . v . Ja c o b s on P rod uc ts C o ., Inc ., 514 U

. S. 1 59 , 1 64 ( 1995 )

. I n other wor ds, i fthe Qui l te d Di amond Des i g n i s funct i o na l, the t r a de mar ki s i nv a l i d. I n TrafFix , th e Su p re m e C o u rtfou n d th at a d es ign is functi onal“i fi t i s e sse nti alto the u se o r purpose o f th e a rt icle or if it affe c ts th e c o st or q u alit y of t h e a rt icle .” 532 U

. S. at32 ( i ntern al c i tat i ons and quotati ons om i tted)

. Court s l oo k t o seve ra l f acto rs to deter m i ne wh et h er a d es ign is fu n c tio n al: ( 1) the e xi st en ce of a u ti l i typa te nt, e xpi r ed o r une xpir ed, thati nvol ves ordescr ibes the functi onal i ty of an i tem ’ s desi gn el em ent; ( 2) the uti l i tar i an pro perti es of the item ’s un p aten ted de sign elem en ts; (3) ad vertis in g ofthe i tem thatto uts the uti l i tar i an advantag es ofthe i tem ’ s desi gn el em ents; ( 4) the dearth of, o r di f fi cul tyi n c r ea ting, a l te r na ti ve de si g ns f o r the item ’s p urp ose; (5) th e effect of th e d esign fe atu re on a n i tem ’ s qual i ty orco st. S p e c i a l iz e d S e a t i n g, In c . v. G r e e n wi c h In d u s t r i e s , L
. P. , 47 2 F. Su p p . 2d 99 9, 10 11 (N .D . I ll. 20 07 ); s e eal s o Val u Engin eering Inc
. v. R e x n o r d C o rp . , 2 7 8 F

. 3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 74 ( F e d. C ir. 2002). K i m ber l y- Clar k a rg ues, cor re ctl y w e thi nk, thatGeor gi aPa ci fi c’ s tr ade m ar k s co ve r i ng th e Qui l ted Di amond Desi gn o ver l ap w ith the ‘ 057, ‘ 156, ‘ 639, ‘ 776, and ‘ 830N o. 10

- 3519 7 uti l i ty patents and a re str ong evi dence offuncti onal i ty. I n Frane k, w e fou nd that“uti l i ty patents ser ve as excel l ent c heat sheet s [ f ordeter m i ni ng functi onal i ty] because any desi gn cl ai m ed i n a pate nt i s sup posed to b e u se fu l.” 61 5 F .3d at85 7; se e also TrafFix , 53 2 U

. S. at 2 9 ( fi n d i n gth a te x p i r e d u t i l i t y p a t e n t s a r e “ s tr o ng evi dence thatthe f eat u res there i n cl ai m ed ar e functi onal ”)

. Speci fi cal l y, i f the “centr al advanc e” cla i m ed i n the uti l i ty patent m atches the “es senti alfeature” o f the t ra dem ar k, ther e i s s tr ong evi dence that the desi gn is fu n c tio n al. TrafFix , 53 2 U.S

. at30

. A s a n init ial m at te r, G eo rg ia-P ac ific a rg u es on ap p ea l, as i t di d i n the d istri ct co ur t, tha t th e pat en ts c o ve r the m anufa cturin g m etho d orte chniques of“o f f set ti ng” th e patt er n and “var yi ng the depth” ofthe em bos sed el em ents, a n d n ot the desi gn i tse l f

. But as the di str i ct j ud ge f ound, a pate nt cla im i nvol vi ng a tangibl e i tem is d iffer en t fro m a c laim rela tin g t o a p r o c e s s. See In re Koll ar, 2 86 F

. 3d 13 26 , 1 33 2 ( F ed

. C ir
. 2 00 2)

. The r e i s no questi on tha t th e patents at i ssue re f erto to i l et paper

— a tangibl e pr oduct

— an d n ot the s tep-by- ste p app ro ach to cre ati ng i t. W e there f or e turn to the actual tradem ar ks and patents. The par t i e s a g r e e tha tthe e s s e nt i a l fe a t ur e o fthe t r a dem ar ks i s the Qu i l ted Diam ond Desi gn, w hi ch i s e m bos sed on the toilet paper, gi vi ng i t a qui l t- l i ke appearance . See Reg. N os. 2, 710, 741; 1, 778, 352; 1, 806, 076; and 1, 979, 345. There f o r e, the que st i o n i s whethe r the Qui l te d Di amond Desi gn i s a l so the “ centr aladvance” cl ai m ed i n any of th e u tilit y p at en ts . U n f o r tu n at ely for G eo rg ia-P ac ific, all8 N o. 10

- 3519 fi ve uti l i ty patents disclos e a di am ond l att i ce des i gn filled w ith sign a t u r e b o ss es an d cla im th e b en efit s o f th is desi gn as the “centr aladvance. ” F orexam ple , the ‘ 830 patent disc l ose s a “s heet ofti ssue” with a “no nw ove n fibro us w eb” that exhibi ts “puffi ness and bulk”; the ‘ 776 patent re f er ences “dia m ond shape d cel l s” and a “s heet ofti ssue exhibi ti ng puffi ness and bulk ” that m i ni m i zes “nest i ng”; the ‘ 057 patent cl ai m s a “la tti ce patter n . . . fi l l ed wi tha s i g na tu r e deb o ss m en t” th at r edu ce s “n es ting ”; a nd the ‘ 639 patent not es thatem bos si ng a l att i ce des i gn an d the s i gnatur e bo sse s a t di f f er ent he i ghts can achi eve uti l i tar i an bene fi ts. Each ofthe patents di scus se s th e be ne fi ts o fthe Q uilte d Di amond Des i g n. K im b er ly-C lar k a rg u es th at th is lan gu ag e is st ro n g e vidence offuncti onal i ty. W e a gr ee. Georg i a- Pac i fi c ar gues, however, thatthe Qu i l ted D iam ond D esign is m erely “i nc iden tal” un d er TrafFix . Ac c o r d i n g l y , w e w i l l “ [ g o ] b e y o nd ” th e p a t e n tc l a i ms to the s peci fi cati ons. S eeTrafFix , 53 2 U.S

. at34

. The abst r acts f o r the ‘ 63 9 an d ‘ 15 6 pat en ts s ta te tha t “[ t] he pe r c e i v e d soft nes s of e m boss ed t is suecan b e increase d gre atly whil eavo i di ng ne s t i ng w h en a p ar tic u l a r p at te rn is em bos se d into the ti ssue. ” ( Em phasi s a dd ed. ) The ‘ 776 ab st r ac t des cr ibe s th atpa te nt as “ [ a] n e m bo ss ed ti ss ue havi ng im pro ved bulkan d p uffin ess whi l e be i ngno n- ne st i ng by h aving a latt ice pat tern and at l east tw o signatu re bos ses . ” ( Em phasi s a dd ed. ) A nd the ‘ 057 patent sta tes that “[ t] hi s i nventi on r el ate s to the di sco ver y that per ceiv ed soft nes s of e m boss ed t is suecan b e increase d gre atly whil eavo i di ng pr i orar tne s t i ng pr ob l e m s i f a par t i cu l ar pat t e r n is e m b os s e d i nt o t het i s s ue . ” (Em p ha s is ad d ed

. ) SoN o. 10

- 3519 9 Georg i a- Paci f i c’ s a r g ume nt f a r e s no b e t t e r her e; t h ese abs tracts allrefer to the Qu il ted Diam ond De sign’s uti l i tar i an bene fi ts ofso ftness , bul k, and non- nesti ng. M o r eo ve r, the pa te nts c la i m the Qui l te d Di amond Desi gn as the “m os t prefer re d em bodi m ent. ” ( The prefer r ed embo di m en t o fthe ‘ 05 7 pat en t i s a l at ti ce pa ttern ofdi am ond cel l s fi l l ed w i th si gn at u re debos sm ents; the m os t p ref er re d em bodi m ent f orthe ‘ 639 patent i s a l att i ce c om p rised of“di am ond shaped” cel l s fi l l ed w i th a “s i g na tu r e bo ss . ”) And whi l e the pre f er r ed embo di m en t al one i s no t definiti ve offuncti onal i ty, the l anguage G eorgia-Pacifi c u ses in th e pre ferred em bod im en t (a l att i ce pat ter n fi l l ed w i th hearts and fl owers) m atches th e l an g ua g e i n the c l ai m s ( a l at ti ce s tr uctur e an d di amond- sh ape d c el l s)

. As wi ththe lang ua g e i n the speci fi cati ons, the c onsis tency i n l anguage bet w een the pr efer re d em bodi m ent a nd the cl ai m s i s e vi de nce offuncti onal i ty. Thu s, r eadi ng the l anguage o fthe patents, we fi nd that the “ centr aladvance” cl aim ed i n the uti l i ty patents is em bos si ng a quil t- l i ke diam ond l att i ce fi l l ed w i th si gnatur e desi gns that i m prove s ( perce i ved) so ftness an d b u l k, a n d r e d u c e s n e s t i n g a n d r i d g i n g . T h i s i s th e sam e “es senti al f eature” cl ai m ed i n the tr adem ar ks. Thus, the l anguage o fthe patents

— th e cl aim s, abs tr ac ts , a nd pr efer r ed embo di m en t

— i s “s tr o nge vi den ce ” th atthe Q u ilte d D iam on d D es i gn i s fu n c tio n al, an d G eo rg ia-P ac ific h as failed to offe r ev id en c e t h at th e d es ign i s m er ely in c id en ta l. Georg i a- Paci fi c al so ar gues that the e xi ste nce o fdesi gn patents precl ud es a fi nd i ng o ffuncti onal i ty, o r at l eas t10 N o. 10

- 3519 i s e vi dence ofnon- functi onal i ty. B u t, l i ke a t ra dem ar k, desi gn p ate nts do not precl ud e a fi nd i ng o ffuncti onal i ty. See E co M anu

f ac t ur i ng, 3 57F

. 3d at6 53 ( affi r m i ng dist ri ct c ourtdeni alo fpre l i m i naryi nj uncti on due to functi onal i ty ofdesi gn ev en tho u gh d esi gn had bee n prot ecte d by e xpir ed desi gn pate nt) ; Ta l ki n g Rain Beve r ageCo. , Inc . v. Sout h Be ac h Be ve rageCo. , 34 9 F

. 3d 601, 60 5 n. 3 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 3)

. The r ef ore, we a g r ee wi ththe dist ri ct j ud ge

— th e func ti o na l i tyo fthe Qui l te d Di amond Desi gn r em ai ns undisturbed bythe desi gn pate nts because o fthe uti l i tar i an bene fi ts that ar e cl ear l y di scl ose d i n the uti l i ty patents. Geo r g i a- Pa ci fi c ne xta ss er ts tha t e xpe r t te st i m o ny cre ate s a ge nuine i ssue ofm ate ria l f act. Fi rs t, we note th atb ec au se we ca n r ea di l y di sc ern the s co pe an d conte nt o fthe u tilit y pate nts a t i ssue f ro m the draw i ngs, speci fi cati ons, and cl ai m s, i t i s unneces sar y t o re l y o n ex tr in sic ev id en c e, su c h a s e x p er t t es tim on y. Kara Tec hnology, Inc . v. St am ps . co m , Inc . , 582 F.3 d 1 3 4 1 , 1348 (Fed

. Cir. 20 09 ); Vitronic s C orp. v. Co ncept ronic, Inc. , 90 F. 3d 1576 , 1584 ( Fed. Ci r. 1 996) ( “[ T]he expertte sti m ony, wh i ch w as i nconsi ste nt with the s peci fi cati on a nd fi l e hi sto ry, shoul d h av e be en acc or ded no w ei ght. ”)

. There f or e, to t he e xt e nttha tthe e xp e r t s ’ o pini on s o n ho w t o r e a d a pat e ntc o nfl i c twi t h t he a c t ua l l a ngua g e o fthe p a t ent, that confl i ct “ does not cre ate a questi on o ff act nor can the e xpert opi ni on bi nd the cour t o r reliev e the co urt of i ts o bl i g at i o n t o c o ns tr ue the c l ai m s ac co r di ngt o the teno r ofthe patent. ” M odi neM a nuf ac t ur i ng Co. v. U
. S. Int e r nat i onal Tr adeCom m i s s i on , 75 F. 3d 1545 , 15 50 ( Fed. C ir. 19 96) ( i nter nal ci tat i on o m i tte d) ( abr oga ted on oth er groun d s).N o. 10

- 3519 11 H er e, Geor gi a- Paci fi c pre sente d expert tes ti m ony that the uti l i tar i an benefi ts of the Qu i l ted Diam ond D esign are not the resu lt o f th e pa rticular pa ttern bu t, rath er, t h e t e c h n i q u e u s e d t o e mb o s s th e t i s s u e , an d t h a te mb os si ng i s no t r equi re d to produce so ft t i ssue. But to th e ext en t tha t th e ex per ts ’ t es ti m o ny c o nfl i ct s wi tho ur fi nd i ngs

— fi ndi ng s der i ve d fr o m the l an g ua g e o fthe patents

— w e aff or d i t no weight, and i t doe s no t cr eat e a quest i on o ff act. Georg i a- Paci fi c a lso cl ai m s, i n the al ter nati ve, that w hi l e the Qu i l ted Diam ond Desi gn m i ght ha ve bee n functi onalo nce, i t i s no l onge r fu n cti onal

. A ccor ding to Georg i a- P ac ifi c, thi s i s cr i ti calbec ause “te chnol ogi cal ch an ge can rend er de signs th at w er e fun ctiona l years ago no l on ge r so. ” Fra nek, 61 5 F

. 3d at 859. Geor gi aPa ci fi c i s co r r ec t. W e he l d i n Eco M anu f ac t ur i ng that “w hat w as on c e fu n c tio n al m ay . . . lat er be orn am en ta l. P as s a g e o f tim e d im in ish es a u tilit y p at en t’s sign ificance. ” 3 57 F. 3d at 653. But i n both ofthe case s G eorgi aPaci fi c ci tes , the p atents a t i ssue had expir ed, wh er eas h er e t h e ‘8 30 an d ‘77 6 p at en ts are st ill ac t i v e . In d ee d , i n Fra nekwe noted that “ m or e r ecentpa te n ts are often betterev i dence” o ffuncti onal i ty . 6 15 F. 3d at 859. Thus, Geo r g i a- Pa ci fi c’ s cl ai m tha t ev eni f th e Qui l te d Di amond Desi gn w as once functi onali t no l onge r i s, does not hold w ater; tw o o f t h e pa ten ts at issue in th is case are st ill i n effe c t. A c c or d in gly , t h e first fac to r w eig h s h ea vily i n f avo r offi nd i ng functi onal i ty. B ecause the seco nd f acto r

— t he u t i l i t a r i a n pr o pe r t i es ofthe unp ate nted desi gn el em ents

— is n ot atiss u e in th is12 N o. 10

- 3519

case , we m ove to thi rd f acto r of functi onal i ty: wh ether adv er ti singt o ut s th e ut i l i ta r i ana dva nt ag es o fthe ass er ted desi gn. Geor gi a- Paci f i c’ s a dve r t i s e men ts i ncl ud e the f ol l owing cl ai m s: ( 1) “Q uil ted to A bso rb” ; ( 2) “Qui l ted to cr eat e thousands ofpl aces f orm oisture to go”; ( 3) “Ou r tw o softe st layers of p rem ium tissue are ge n tly qu ilte d to ge th er to giv e y o u a n d you r fam ily excepti onal softness and com f or t”; and ( 4) “Qui l ted N or ther n U l tr a with a uni que new qui lte d d esi gn f or m or e q u iltin g a n d co m for t t h an ev er be for e.” Georg i a- Paci fi c m ake s t w o cl aim s w i th r ega rd to th ese ad vertisem en ts. First, i t argu es th at th ey are m ere puff er y and , the r efo r e, no t f ac tu als ta te m en ts abo ut t he p r o du c t
. Bu tl o o k i ngt o the a ds , the di s t r i c tj ud ge was s po t- o n i n n o tingtha t th e l an guag e “l i nk s th e quil ted feature to num er ous uti l itari an bene fi ts, such a s so ftn es s, c o m f o r t, an d abs o r pti o n, ” fur th era f fi r m i ng th at th e Q u ilte d D iam on d D es ign is fu n c tio n al. See Fra nek, 61 5 F

. 3d at 859 ( fi nd i ng tha t ap ro d uct’ s functi onal i ty w as bol ste re d by the ad ver ti sem ents, wh i ch high li gh ted the fun ctiona l asp ect of the d esign). S ec o nd, Ge o r g i a- Pa ci fi c ar g ue s th ati ts a dve r ti sing c re at es a ge n u in e is s u e o f m at er ial fa c t. G eo rg ia-P ac ific r el i es o n Tho m a s & B etts C o rp. v. P a nd uit C o rp . , 138 F. 3d 277, 29 9-3 00 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) , a case i n w hi ch w e r eve rs ed sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ecause a m ate ri alquesti on o ff act exi ste d concer ni ng wh etherad ve rt i sem ents toute d functi onalas pects oftr ade dres s. But, as K i m ber l y- Clar k no tes , Tho m a s & B etts i s d ist in gu i shabl e; i n that case i t was unc l ea r whether the a dve r ti se m en ts wer e ab o uttheN o. 10

- 3519 13

a s s e r t e d d e s i g n f e a t ur e ( a n ova l

- s ha pe d c a b l e t i e h e a d) o r o th erfea tu r es o fa c ab l e ti e, whi l e he r e, the l an g ua g e i n t he a ds i s cl ear

— the Qui l ted Di am ond Desi gn i s unequi voca l l y l i nked to functi on albene fi ts such as a b s o rb e nc y , s o ft ne s s , a nd c o mf o r t
. Ge o r g i a - Pa c i fi c ’ s a ds d o n ot c r e a t e a ge n u in e is su e o f m at er ial fa c t. See In re B o se C o rp . , 7 72 F

. 2d 8 66, 87 1- 72 ( F ed. Ci r . 1 98 5) ( fi ndi ng that advert i sem ents w er e s tr ong evi dence offuncti onal i ty w hen Bose ad ver ti sed the shape o fi ts speake r as a p erform an ce-en ha nc ing p art of th e sou nd system ). The ne xtf ac to r i n de te r m i ni ngfunc ti o na l i ty is the avail ab i l i ty ofal ter nati ve desi gns f orthe i tem ’ s purpose . G e o r g i a - P a c i fi c a r g u e s th a tth e t o i l e tp a p e r c a n b e e mbos sed with a ny num bero fde sig n s, such a s o ctag ons or he xa gon s (as it m en tioned in th e ‘776 an d ‘830 p a t e n t s ), an d s ti l l po ss ess th e sa m e ut i l i ta r i anb en efi ts a s th e Q u i l t e d Di a mo n d De s i g n . B u t a s we n o t e d i n S pec ia liz ed Se at i ng, Inc . v. Gr e e nwi ch Indu s t r i e s , L. P ., t h e d es ign in questi on d oe s n ot have to be the only poss ibl e desi gn to be functi onal ; ra ther, i t i s functi onal i f i t “re prese nts one o f m a ny solu tio ns to a p roblem

. ” 616 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 20 10 ) ( emp ha sis a dded)

. And l i k e i n Spe ci al ize d S e at i ng, w e d o n ot d ou b t t h at t h e r e a r e m an y ot h er av aila b le functi onaldesi gns f orto i l et paper ( i nd eed, m ar ket

l eaderCharm in pro ves ther e a re ) , but i fthe Qu i l ted Diam ond Desi gn i s a solu tio n to a probl em , as Geor gi aPa ci fi c cl ai m ed i t to b e i n i ts pa te nts, it is func ti o na l a nd thu s re m ains in the sphere o fpatentpro tect i on a nd not in th at of tr ad em ar k. Id

. Acco r dingly, bec au se we fi nd t h e d e s i g n t o b e fu n c t i o n a l, th e f a c tth a tth e r e a r e n u mer ous a l ter nati ve des i gns doe s no t, o n i ts own , r ender th e d es ign n on fu n c tio n al a n d inc id en ta l. Id

.14 N o. 10

- 3519 The fi nal f acto r offuncti onal i ty concerns the eff ect of th e de s i g n o n a i t e m’ s qua l i t y o r c o s t
. He r e , Ki m ber l yClar k a sse rt s o nl y that the Quil ted D i am ond Desi gn affe c ts th e q u alit y of t h e b at h tis su e, an d so w e w ill f o cus o ur i nqui r y th er e. Ki m be r l y - Cl ar k ar g ue s th at the ut i l i ty patents’ cl ai m s a nd speci fi cati ons expli ci tl y no te that the Qui l ted Di am ond D es i gn i m prove s s oftness an d c o m f o r t, i nc r ea se s bul k, e nha nces r o l l s tr uctur e, a nd pr ev en ts ne st i nga nd r i dging

— al l cl ai m s o fqual i ty. Ki mbe r l y - Cl a r ka l s o n o t e s tha tGe o r g i a - Pa c i fi c ’ s a ds hi ghl i ght the sa m e be nefi ts ofthe desi gn . Geo rg i aPa ci fi c’ s o wn l an guag e, i n b o ththe ut i l i typa te nt s an d the a dvert i sem ents, co nsi ste ntl y r efer s t o the incre ase d quali ty

— so ftn es s, c o m f o r t, b ul k, a nd reduce d ne st i ng an d r i dging

— when us i ngthe Qui l te d D iamond De si g n. W e agree w ith th e d istri ct j ud ge th at G e o r g ia- Pa cifi c’s own c l a i ms t o utthe i mpr o v e d qua l i t y o fthe p r o duct due t o the Qui l te d Di amond Des i g n. W e thus fi nd tha t Ki m be r l y - Cl ar kha s pr o duce d s tr o ng evi dence offuncti onal i ty, and Geor gia -Paci fi c has f ai l ed to p ro ve th at th e d es ign is in c id en ta l. InFra neka nd Speci alize d S e at i ng, w e expl ai ne d tha t func ti o na l i typo l i ce s th e d ivi sion b e t w e e n pa ten t and trad em ark law , and i f a des i g n i s func ti o na l the o wnerc an no t t r ade m ar kthe desi gn and b l ock i nnovati on. Georg i a- Paci fi c, w h ether i nt en ti o na l l y o r no t, pa te nt ed th ei r Qui l te d Di amond Desi gn and cl ai m ed i t t o be functi onal . T hey m ust no w l i ve w i th that choi ce and c an benefi t onl y und er th e protect i on o fa patent, notthato fa tr adem ar k. W e n e xta ddr e s s Ge o r g i a - Pa c i fi c ’ s c l a i m t ha tthe di str i ct j ud ge er re d i n f ai l i n g t o add re ss w hetherKim ber l y-N o. 10

- 3519 15 Cl ar ki nfr i ng ed Geo r g i a-Paci fi c’ s tr ade m ar k s by us i ng the desi gn on i ts packag i ng. Georg i a- Paci fi c ar gues th at re gar dle ss ofwh etherthe Qu i l ted Di am ond Desi gn o n the t oi l et paper i s functi onal, i t abso l utel y is not fu n c t ion al w h en u se d on p ac ka gin g. B u t if a p ro d u c t is func ti o na l a nd thus u nr eg i st r ab l e, a s we ha ve f o und the Qu i l ted Di am ond Desi gn to be, then “ th e a ccurat e depi cti on o fthat[ product] i s a l so unregist rabl e. ” In reCN S, Inc. , N o. 7 6 2 5 0 1 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 WL 3 1 7 5 1 0 7a t* 6 n . 1 1 ( T. T. A. B. N ov . 18, 20 05 ); Text r on Inc . v. Pil l i ng Chai n C o ., Inc . , 17 5 U .S.P .Q . (B N A ) 62 1, 62 2 (T .T .A .B . 197 2) (o n e c an n ot cla im trad em ark ri gh t in the con fi gu ration or i llu s t ration of a p u re ly fu n c tio n al ite m ); s e eal s o 1 J

. Thom as M cCarthy, M cCarthy o n Tra dem ar ks & U nfa i r Com peti ti on § 7: 37 ( 4th e d. 2 00 9) ( “No o ne c o m pet i to r s ho ul d ha ve the e xc l usiv e rig h t t o s h ow a p ic t u r e of a fu n c tio n al p ro d u c t. T h is w oul d be the co m peti ti ve equi val ent o fan e xcl usi ve r i g htt o the ge ner i c na m e o fthe pr o duct, whi chno o ne ca n o wn. ”)

. Thu s, Ge o r g i a- Pa ci fi c ca nno t tr ade m ar kthe Q u i l t e d D i a mo n d D e s i g n o n i t s p a c k a g i ng f o r th e s a me re aso n i t can n ot tr adem ar k the desi gn o n the toi l et paper

— th e d es ign is fu n c tio n al. Final ly, Georgia -P ac ific a rg u es th at lac h es ba rs Kim ber lyClar k fro m as ser ti ng the functi onal i ty defe nse. T o establ i sh l aches, Geor gi a- Paci fi c m ust s how thatKim berlyClar k unre aso nabl y del aye d i n ass er ti ng i ts functi onal i ty defe nse, and that Ge or gi a- Paci fi c r eas onabl y r el i ed u p on , an d w as p r e ju d i c ed by , th e d ela y. M aher v. C ity of Chi cago , 547 F.3d 81 7, 82 2 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); see also C hattanoga M

fg. , Inc. v. N ike, Inc. , 30 1 F

. 3d 789, 79 2- 93 ( 7th16 N o. 10

- 3519 Cir

. 20 02) ( noti ng tha t i n tr adem ar k c ase s, l aches ap p lies w here the defe nd ant can show “ that the pla i nti f f h ad knowle dge o fthe def endant’s use ofan a l l ege dly i nfr i ngin g m ar k . .

. th at th e p lain t i f fi n ex c u sa b ly d ela ye d in tak i nga ct i o n wi thr es pec t to the de f en dan t’ s us e, a nd th atde f en dan t woul d b e pre j ud i ce d b y a l l o wi ngthe p lai nt iff to assert its ri gh ts at th is ti m e”). A ccor ding to Geor gi a- Paci fi c, Kim ber l y- Clar k knew ab o utthe ut il ity pa te nt s f o r a t l ea sta de ca de, a nd ther ef or e ca nnot no w use functi onal i ty as an affi rm ati ve defe nse. Kim ber l y- Clar k c l ai m s, h ow eve r, thati t di d not sle ep on its r i g h t s b ec au se u n til G eo rg ia-P ac ific s u ed , i t had no obliga tio n orr eas on t o chal l enge the v al i dity o f G eo rg ia-P ac ific’s tr ad em ar k reg ist ra tio n s. Ande rs on v. B o a rd o f R egen ts of th e U niv . of Wisc o n s in S ystem , 14 0 F

. 3d 70 4, 70 7 (7 t h C i r. 19 98 ) (“A ta rg et of a p ot en tia l law su it h as n o ob liga tio n, ho w ev er , to p oin t o u t t h e fla w s in the c om p lainant’ s a cti on be f or e the sui t i s e ven fi l ed w i th the c ourt
. ”)

. M or eov er, the Lanh am A ct doe s no t p er m it t h e filin g of a tra d em ar k c an c ella tio n c laim in f edera l co urt abse nt an i nd ependent basi s f orfedera l j ur i s di c t i o n, s uc h a s a c l a i m o fi nfr i ng e men to fthe r egi ster ed m ar k. D itri v. C o ldw ell B a n k er R esiden tia l A ffilia tes , Inc. , 954 F.2d 869 , 873-74 (3d Cir. 1992). K im b e r ly -C lark did n o tde l a y i n r a i s i ngfun c t i o na l i t y a s a n a f fi r mat i ve defe nse; i t di d so i n re sponse to Georg i a- Pa c ifi c’ s cl ai m s. Theref or e, ther e was no i nexcusabl e del ay orprej ud i ce, an d lac h es d oe s n ot ap p ly. Forthe f o r e g o i ngr e a s o ns , Ge o r g i a - Pa c i fi c ’ s Qu i l t ed Diam ond Desi gn i s functi onaland ther ef or e ca nnotN o. 10

- 3519 17 be trad em arked

. Th e j ud gm en t o f th e d istri ct cou rt i s A FFI RMED .

7- 28- 11