## 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. 09

- 2155 J AY F RA NC O & S ONS, I NC ., P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C LEM EN S F RANEK, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
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 . 08 C58

—Rob ert M. Dow, Jr. , Ju dge .
A RG UE D M AY 24, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 11, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd P OSNERa nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . T h e s a m e y ea r H u ey L ew is a nd the Ne ws i nfo r med Am er i c a tha ti t ’ s “ Hi p To Be Squ are”, Clem en s Fra ne k soug ht to trad em ark the circ u lar be a c h to w el. H is c om p an y, C L M D es ign , In c ., pi tche d the tow ela s a f as hi o n s ta te m en t

— “the m ost r adi ca l b ea chf as hi o n i te m s i nc e th e bi k i ni, ” dec l ar ed o ne ad vertisem en t. “ B ou nd to be roun d ! Don ’t be squ are!”2 N o. 09

- 2155 procl ai m ed another. CL M also tar get ed l azysunbathe rs : “The ro und shape el i m i nates the need to const an tly ge t up a nd mov e y o urt o wela s th e su n moves across the sk y. Ins te ad m er ely rep os itio n you rs elf.” The product e nj oye d som e ini tial success. Buoyed by an i nv e s t men t a nd pr o mot i o na l he l p f r o m the act or W oo dy H ar re l son ( then a bar tender on the TV show C heers ) , CL M had so l d m or e than 30,00 0 round bea ch to wel s i n 3 2 st at es b y the e nd o f1 98 7. To s ec ur e i ts s ta tu s as th e p re m ier c i rc u lar -to w el m ak er , th e c om p an y in 19 86 appl i ed f o r a tr ade m ar kon th e t o wel ’ s r o und de si g n. The Pa te nt an d Tr ade m ar kOffi ce r eg i st er ed th e “c o nfi g ura ti on o fa ro und beach to w el ” a s t ra dem ar k No. 1, 502, 261 in 1 98 8. Butthi s was no t en o ug h t o s av e CLM : S i x y ears l at eri t di ss o l ve d. The mar kwas a ss i g ne d t o Fra ne k, who continues to se l l ci rcul arto w el s. In 2006 Fr anek disc ove re d that J ay Fr anco & So ns, a dist ributoro fbath, bedding, and b ea c h acc ess or i es, was se l l i ngr o und b ea cht o wel s. Af te r s et tl ementne g o ti at i o ns f ai l ed, Fr anek sued two ofJ ay Fr anco’ s cust om er s, Tar get and W al m ar t, f orunauthor i zed use ofhi s r egi ste re d tr adem ar k in vi ol ati on o f§3 2 o fthe Lanh am A ct, 15 U. S
. C
. § 1 1 1 4
. J a y F r a n c o h a d a g r e e d t o i n d e mn i fy a nd defe nd i ts custo m er s in su c h sui ts, so i t s ued Fra nek t o i nval i date hi s m ar k. ( The pend i ng suits agai nst Tar get and W al m ar t m ade the cl ai m r i pe, j ust a s insurer s ca n bring decl ar ato ry -j ud gm ent s uit s t o re sol ve dispu tes about a pol i cy’ s s cop e o nce an i nsured has been sued a nd a s s e r t s tha tthe p o l i c y a pp l i e s . ) T he di s t r i c tj ud ge co ns o l i dat ed th e tw o cas es , g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en tN o. 09

- 2155 3 i n J a y F r a n c o ’ s f a v o r, a n d d i s mi s s e d th e r e ma i n i n gc l a i ms a n d co u n te rc laim s. 20 09 U .S. D ist . L EXIS20 36 1 (N .D . I ll. M ar . 13, 2009 )
. Fr anek appeal s f ro m th at j ud gm ent; T ar ge t a n d W alm ar t a re n otp ar t o f th e a p p ea l. One w ay to voi d a tradem ar k i s t o chal l enge i ts distinctiv eness . A val i d tra dem ar k i denti fi es the s ourc e o f th e g o o d i t m ar k s. De si g ns do no t inhe r en tly c o m m uni cate thati nfo rm ati on, so to be valid a product- desi gn m ar k m ust have acqui re d a “s eco nd ar y m eani ng”

— a l i nk i n the m i nd s o fco nsu m ers be tw een the m ar ked i tem and i ts sour ce. S ee Wa l-M a rt Sto res, Inc . v . Sam a ra B roth ers, Inc. , 52 9 U .S. 20 5 (20 00 ); B re tf ord M anufacturi ng, Inc. v . S mi t h S y s t e m M a n u f a c t u r i n gC o rp. , 4 19 F. 3d 576, 57 8– 80 (7t h C ir. 20 05 ). C f. Tw o P es os , Inc . v. Taco Caban a, Inc. , 505 U .S. 76 3 (1 99 2). B u t t h is t yp e o fi n v a l i d at ion is u n a v a i l a b l e t o J a y F r a n c o . F r a n e k( a n d b e f o r e h i m C L M) has co nti nuously used the ro und

- towel m ar k s i nce i ts 19 88 reg ist ra tio n . Th at m ak e s t h e m ar k “ in c on te st ab le,” 15 U
. S. C . § 1 0 6 5 , a statu s tha t eli m inates the n eed f or a m ar k’s ow n er in a n infr in ge m en t s u it t o s h o w th at h is m ar k i s d ist in c tiv e. Se e 1 5 U .S.C . §11 15 (b ); Park ‘NFly, Inc. v. D ollar P ark and Fly, Inc. , 469 U
. S. 189 (1985). U nfo rtu n at ely f orFr anek, i ncontes tabl e m ar ks ar e no t i nvi ncibl e. The Lanham A ct l i sts a num bero faffi rm ati ve defe nses an al l ege d i nfr i ngercan parr y with; o ne i s a sh ow ing tha t t h e m ark is “fun ctiona l. ” See §1115 (b)( 8); 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. , N o. 07

- 14 35 ( 7th Ci r . Aug. 1 1, 2 01 0) , s l i p o p. 3 –4 ( di sc us sing fu n c tio n a lity an d ot h er w ay s t o d efe at inc on te st ab le m ar k s)
. As o urc o m pan i o n o pi ni o n in Specialize d S e at i ng4 N o. 09

- 2155 expla i ns, patentl aw al one pr otects useful desi gns fro m m i m i cry ; the functi onal i ty doctr i ne pol i ces the di vi si on ofr esponsibi l i ti es b etween patent and tra dem ar k l aw byi nv al i dat i ngmar k s o n us efulde si g ns. T hi s was the r o ut e J a y F r a nc o p ur s ue d. T he di s t r i c tj ud g e a g r e e d, fi nd i ng F ra nek’s m ar k “ functi onal ” under the defi ni ti on th e S u p r e me C o u r t g a v e th a t c o n c e p t i n Traf Fix D evic es, Inc. v. M arket ing D is plays , Inc. , 532 U
. S. 23, 32–3 5 (2001). The j ud ge goti t r i ght. TrafFix s ay s th ata de si g n i s func ti o na l when i t i s “e ss en tial to the use or pu rpos e of the devi ce or w h en it affe c ts th e c os t o r q u alit y of t h e d ev ice ,” 5 32 U .S. at 3 3, a d e fi n i t i o n c r ib b e d fr o m Inwood Lab orat or i e s , Inc . v. Ives Laboratori es, Inc. , 456 U
. S. 844, 850 n
. 10 (1982). So i f a des i g n e nabl es a pr o ductt o o per at e, o r i m pr o ve s o n a su bs ti tu te de si g n i n s o m e way( su cha s bymakingthe pr o ductc he ape r, f as te r, l i g ht er, or st r o ng er ) , the n the desi gn ca n n ot b e t ra dem ar ked; i t i s functi onalbec ause con su m ers w ou ld pa y to hav e it rath er than be ind if

fer ent t oward orpay to avo i d i t. A qual i fi cation is that an y pl ea su r e a cus to m erde r i ves fr o m the de si g n’ s i den

ti fi cati on o fthe product’ s s ourc e

— th e joyo fb uy i ng a m ar ked g ood o veran i denti calge neri c ve rs i on be cause th e con su m er prefers th e sta t us conferred by the m ark

— doesn’ t co unt. That b ro ad a theor y o ffuncti onal i ty w oul d penal i ze com panie s f or devel opi ng bra nd s w i th cachetto di sti ngui sh the m sel ves f ro m co m peti tor s, wh i ch i s the ver y pu rpos e of tr adem ar k l aw . I n shor t, a d esi gn that produc es a be nefi t o therthan sour ce i denti fi cati on is fu n c tio n al.N o. 09

- 2155 5 Fi guring o ut wh i ch designs m eetthi s cr i ter i on ca n be tr i cky

. U ti l i ty patents ser ve as excel l ent cheat sh ee ts because any d es ign c lai m ed i n a pate nt i s s up posed to be u se fu l. Se e 3 5 U .S.C . §10 1; Bre nnerv. M ans on , 383 U
. S. 51 9, 5 28 –3 6 (1 96 6). Fo r th is re as on , TrafFix hel d that ex pi r ed ut il i typa te nt s pr o vi de “s tr o nge vi den ce tha t th e features ther ei n cl ai m ed ar e functi onal

. ” 5 32 U
. S. at29
. The pa r ti es i n thi s ca se wra ng l e o ve r the r el evan ce of a h a n d fu l o f u t i l i t y p a t e n t s th a t c l a i m c i r c u l a r t o w e l s . We ne ed dis cuss o nl y o ne ( N o. 4, 794, 029) , wh i ch descr ibes a r ound beach t owel l ace d w i th drawstr i ngs that ca n be p ulled to tu rn the tow el into a satc he l. T hi s p a t e n t’s fi rs t tw o cl ai m s a re : 1. A to wel

-ba gc o ns tr uct i o n c o m pr i sing : a no nre c ta n gu lar to w el;
a c as in g form ed at th e pe rim et er of s aid to w el;
a co r d thr ea ded th r o ug h s ai d c as i ng ; a nd
a s ecti on o frel ati vel y no n-s tr etchab l e f abr i c o f a s h ap e g eo m et ri c a lly sim ilar to th at of sa id to wela tt ac he d wi thi ts e dge s equi di st an t fro m th e e d ge s o f sa id to w el. 2
. A t o we l

-b a g c o n s t r u c t i o n a s s e t f o r th i n c l a i m 1 w here i n sai d towel i s ci rcul ari n shape, w here by a us er wh i l e s unbathi ng m ay re posi ti on hi s o r he r bo dy to war ds th e ch an g i ng an g l e o f the sun w hi l e the to w elr em ai ns st ati onar y. C l a i m 2 s o u n d s l i k e F r a ne k ’ s a d v e r t i s e me n t s , wh i c h we quoted abo ve . The pat ent’ s s peci fi cati on a l so re i ter ate s, i n b o th the s ummar y a nd the de t a i l e d d e s c r i pt i o n, tha t6 N o. 09

- 2155 a ci rcul arto w eli s ce ntra l to the i nventi on be cause of i ts benefi t t o l azysunbathe rs . Fr anek argu es t hat cl ai m 2 does not tr i gge r the TrafFix presum pti on o ffuncti onal i ty b ec au se hi s t owel does not infr i ng e th e ‘ 02 9 pat en t. He n o te s th atc l ai m 2 i nc o rp o r a t e s c l a i m 1 ( i n p a t e n tp a r l a n c e , c l a i m 1 i s “ i n d e p e ndent” and cl ai m 2 “depend ent, ” se e 3 5 U.S
. C. §112 ) with the a dde d c o nd i t i o n tha t the t o we l b e c i r c ul a r . A n i tem can i nfr i nge a d ep en dent cl ai m o nl y i fi t a l so vi ol ate s th e i nde pen dent cl ai m i nc o r po r at ed bythe de pen den t cl ai m . S ee M onsanto C o . v . Syngenta Se eds, Inc. , 50 3 F
. 3d 13 5 2 , 1 3 5 9 ( F e d. Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )
. F r a ne kr e a s o ns tha tb e cause hi s to well acks a pe r i m et erc as i ng, dr aws tr i ng, a nd no nstr etchab le se c tio n off abr i c, i t doe s no t infr i nge c l ai m 1, and th us c a nn o ti nfr i ng e c l a i m 2
. Ev e n i fh i s t o w el c ou ld infr in ge cla im 2, Fra n ek m ain ta i n s t h at th e c laim i s i nv al i d b ec au se the t o wel

- to
-ba gpa te ntwas s o ug ht i n 1 98 7, t wo y ea r s af ter Fr an eks ta r te d s el l i nga r o und be ac h t o wel, a nd thus t o o late t o c l ai m i ts i nv en ti o n. Se e 3 5 U .S .C . §10 2(b ); P faff v. Wel ls Elect ronics, Inc. , 52 5 U
. S. 55 (1998). Pro vi ng pate nt i nfr i ngem ent c an be s uf f i ci e ntto sho w th ata t r ade m ar k ed des i g n is use ful, a s i t m ea ns tha t th e i nfr i ngi ng desi gn i s qu i te si m i l arto a useful i nventi on. S ee R a yth eon Co. v. Rope rCorp. , 724 F.2d 951 , 959 (Fed

. Cir. 19 83 ). B u t s u c h p ro of is u n n ec es sa ry . Fu n c tio n alit y is deter m i ned by a feature’ s usefulne ss, not i ts patentabi l i ty or its infr in ge m en t o f a p at en t. TrafFix ’ s r uling tha t a n exp ire d patent ( w hi ch by defini ti on ca n no l onge r be i nfr i nged ) m aye vinc e a des i g n’ s func ti o na l i tyde m o n-N o. 09

- 2155 7 str ate s that pr oo fo fi nfr i ngem ent is u n n eces sar y. I fan i nv e nt i o n i s t o o u s e l e s s t o b e p a t e n t a b l e , o r t o o d i s s i mi l arto a desi gn to s hed l i ght o n i ts functi ons, then th e la c k of p ro of of p at en t in f r i n ge m en t is m ea n in gfu l. Otherwise i t i s i rr el evant
. A desi gn m ay not i nfr in ge a patented i nventi on be c au se the inventi on i s obvi ous o r ta ug htb y pr i o r a r t, see 35 U. S
. C. § § 10 2( a) , 1 03 ( a) , b ut th o se a nd o th erdi squa l i fi er s do n o t m ea n tha t th e desi gn i s no t use ful. J ust s o h er e: Fr anek’ s t owel m ay l ack som e o fthe com ponents in cl ai m 1 necess ar y t o i nfr i nge c l ai m 2, bu t c lai m 2’ s co ver age o fa ci rcul ar beach towel fo r su nbathi ng i s e nough to si gnalthata ro u n d -to w el d es ign is u se fu l for su nb a th er s. E ac h cla im i n a pate nt is e va l uated i nd i vi du al l y, se e A lt oon a P ublix Thea t r e s , Inc . v. Am e r i ca n Tri-E rgon Corp. , 29 4 U.S
. 47 7, 487 ( 1935 ) , eac h m ust be subst anti al l y di ffer ent, se e 3 7 C
. F.R. §1.75(b); M an ua l o f P aten t E xa m ining Proc ed ure §217 3. 05( n)(b) ( 8th e d., J uly20 10 re v. ) , and ea c h is pres u me d v a l i d , 3 5 U
. S
. C
. § 2 8 2
. W e mu s tth e r e f o r e p r e s u me th a tth e u n i q u e c o mp o n e n ti n c l a i m 2

— the r o un d s ha pe ofthe towel

— is u se fu l. N ordoes i t m att erthatthe ‘ 029 patent ap p li cati on was fi l ed two yea rs afterFr anek bega n sel l i ng r ound towels

. A s we’v e e xplai ned, a patent’ s inval i dity fora re aso n othe r than usel ess ness say s nothi ng about the claim ed desi gn’ s functi onal i ty. A nd a desi gn pate nted ye ste rday can be a s g o o d e v i de nc e o fa ma r k ’ s fun c t i o na l i t y as a des i g n pa te nt ed 50 y ea r s ag o . I nde ed, more r ec en t pat en ts ar e often betterev i dence bec ause technol ogi cal ch an ge can rend er de sign s tha t w ere fun ctiona l years ago no l onge r so. S ee E co M anufacturi ng LLC v . H oneyw el l8 N o. 09

- 2155 Inte rnati ona l Inc. , 35 7 F
. 3d 64 9, 65 3 ( 7th Ci r . 20 03 )
. The Cou r t i n TrafFix may hav e d ea l t o nl y wi th exp ired uti l i ty patents, but the l og i c i t e m plo yed i s no t l i m i ted t o th e m. To put thi ngs a nother way, a tr adem ar k ho l der c annot block inno vation by ap p rop riati ng de signs th at u nd ergi rd furtheri m prove m ents. Pate nt hol ders c an do thi s, bu t a pa ten t’s l ife is s h o r t ; trad em arks can l ast forever, so gr anti ng tr adem ar k ho l ders thi s power c oul d pe rm ane nt ly stifl e prod uc t d evelop m en t. If w e foun d Franek ’s tr adem ar k no nfuncti onal, then i nventor s s eek i ng to bui l d an i m prove d ro u n d beach t owel w oul d be o ut o f lu c k. T h ey ’d h av e to lice n se Fr an ek ’s m ar k or q u e l l t h eir inven tivene ss. T ha t resu lt d oes not j ibe w ith th e pu rp o s e s o fp a t e n to r t r a d e ma r kl a w. Thi s “s tr o nge vi den ce ” o fthe r o und t o wel ’ s funct i o nal i ty i s bo l ste re d b y Fra nek’ s o w n adver ti sem ents, wh i ch hi ghl i ght tw o functi onalasp ects o fthe ro und bea ch to w el’s d es ign . On e, als o d isc u ss ed in t h e ‘ 0 2 9 p at en t, is th at roun d ne ss en ables he li otrop ic s un bath ers

— tan ne rs w ho sw ivel th eir bod ies i n u nison w ith th e sun ’s apparent m oti on i n or der t o m ai ntai n an e ven t an

— to r e m a in on their tow els as they rotate rather th an exert th e ene rgy to stan d up and r e p o s iti on th eir tow els every so often, as co nventi onalr ecta ngul arto w el s r equi re . F r an ekr es po nd s th atwhat ev eri ts s ha pe ( g o l den

ra ti o re ctangl e, squar e, nonag on) any towel can sat i sfy a hel i otr opi c ta nner if it h as enough s urf ace ar ea

— th e i ssue i s s i ze, notshape. That’ s t rue, and i t i s enough to kee p the r oundn ess o fhi s t owel f ro m being functi onalN o. 09

- 2155 9

un d er the fir st p rong of TrafFix ’ s defi ni ti on ( “es senti alto the use o r pu rpos e o f the devi ce”) but not the s eco nd

. Fo r hel i otr opi c sun b at hers , a ci rcl e s urpasse s o thershapes be ca us e i t pr o vi des the mos t r o ta ti o na l sp ace wi th o ut w ast e. A ny non- ci rcl e pol ygo n w i l l ei therl i m i t fullr ota
t i o ns ( s pi nn i ngo n a n o r malb e a c h t o we l l e a ds t o s a nd y hai r and fe et) o r not use al l the surf ace ar ea ( a 6 

### N ta l l per son sw i vel i ng o n a 6 

### N by6 

### N s q u a r e t o we l wo n ’ t to uch t he c or n er s). C om p ar ed to ot h er sh ap es th at p er m it fu ll ro tat i ons, the ro und to w el requi re s l ess m ate ri al, wh i ch m ak es i t ea si ert o f o l d a nd c ar r y . Tha t’ s ev i den ce tha t th e to w el’s circ u lar ity “a ffec ts th e . . . qu alit y o ft h e d ev ice .” ( The r edu ct i o n i n n ee ded m at er i ala l so s ug g es ts tha t r o und tow els ar e che aper to produce than other- shaped towel s, th o ug h F r an ek co nt en ds th at cut ting an d he m m i ngexpen se s m ak e th em co st l i er . W e ex pr ess n o v i ew o n the m at te r.) Bu t l et us suppose with Fr anek

— wh o o p p o s e d s u mm ary j ud gm ent a nd wh o i s thus enti tl ed to al l r easonab l e infe re nces

— that ro und to w el s a re notm easurabl y b ett erf or spi nning w i th the sun. A fteral l, o ther shapes ( squi rcl es, r egul ari cos ago ns) ar e s i m i l areno u gh to ci rcl es that any qual i ta ti ve differ ence m ay be l osto n tanner s. Pl us, the abi li ty to ro tat e 1 80 degre es m ay be an u nd e s i r e d l ux ur y . F e w l i e o utfr o m da wn ‘ t i l du sk ( i fo nl y t o avo i d ski n cancer ) and the dail y c hange i n the s un’ s dec l i na ti o n m ean s itwi l l r i se due e as t an d se t due w estj us t twi ce a y ea r, dur i ngthe v erna l a nd au tu m na l eq uin oxe s. A tow el shap ed l ike a curved hou rgl ass thatal l ows onl y 1 50 or12 0 degr ees o fr ota ti on10 N o. 09

- 2155 ( orev en few er ) m ay be a ll a hel i otr opi c ta nner w ants. N o m at te r. Fra n ek ’s m ar k s till is fu n c tio n al. Fr anek’ s a dvert i sem ents decl ar e that the r ound towel is a fas h ion st at em en t. Fa sh ion is a for m of fu n c tio n . A desi gn ’s aes theti c appealcan be a s functi onalas i ts tangibl e char acte ri st ics. S ee Q ual i t ex Co. v. Jac ob s on Prod uc t s Co. , 514 U .S. 15 9, 16 9– 70 (19 95 ); Wa l-M a rt, 52 9 U .S. at 2 14 ; TrafFix , 5 32 U .S. at 3 3; W
. T. Roge rs Co. v. Ke e ne, 77 8 F .2d 33 4 (7 th C ir. 19 8 5 ); Publ i ca t i ons Int e r nat i onal, Lt d. v. Land oll, Inc. , 164 F.3d 33 7 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ); A bercro m bie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Am er ican Ea gle O utfi tt ers, Inc. , 28 0 F
. 3d 61 9 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. A nd m an y c as es s aytha t f as hi onabl e desi gns c an be f re el y c opi ed unle ss prot ecte d b y p at e n t l a w . See , e.g., B onito Bo ats, Inc. v. Th under C raft B oats, Inc. , 489 U .S. 14 1 (1 98 9); Sea rs, R o ebuc k& C o . v. Stiff el Co. , 376 U .S. 22 5 (1 96 4); Com pc o Corp. v. D ay- Bri t eLight i ng, Inc. , 376 U .S. 23 4 (1 96 4); Kel logg C o. v. N a ti ona l Bisc uit Co. , 305 U .S. 11 1 (1 93 8); S i n g e rMan u f a c t u r i n gC o . v . June M anu f ac t ur i ng Co. , 163 U
. S. 169 (1896). The c hi ef di ffi cul tyi s di st i ng ui sh i ngb etwee n de si g ns that ar e f ashi onabl e e nough to b e functi onaland thos e that ar e m er el y pl eas i ng. Onlythe l att ergr oup can be prot ecte d, because tr adem ar k l aw would be a cr uel j oke i fi tl i mi t e d c o mpa ni e s t o t e pi d o r r e pu g na ntb r a nd s that di s c o ur a g e c us t o mer s fr o m bu y i ngthe ma r k ed war es . W e di sc us se d thi s p roblem a t l en g thi n Kee ne . S ee al so Eco M anu

f ac t ur i ng, 357F.3d at65 4; Schw inn Bicycle C o. v. R oss B icycl es, Inc. , 870 F .2 d 1 176, 1188–9 1 (7th C ir. 19 89 ). Th e Su p re m e C ou rtbr oa c h ed th e s u b je c t in Q ua litex wheni t di sc us se d the func ti o nali ty o fthe g r ee n-N o. 09

- 2155 11 gol d col oro fa dry c l eani ng p ad. U nw i l l i ng to sa y that the pa d r e qu i r e d a g r e e n- g o l d hu e o r wa s i mpr o v ed by i t, the Court still thought thatthe col orwould be functi o na l i fi ts e xc l us i ve us e bya s i ng l e d esigne r “ woul d put c o mpe t i t o r s a ta s i g ni fi c a nt no n- r e pu t a t i o n- r e l a t e d d i s a dvan tage.” 514 U
. S. at 165. This is a p roblem f or Franek’s ro und

- towel m ar k. Fr anek w ants a t ra dem ar k o n the ci rcl e. Granting a producer th e e xcl usi ve use o fa basi c el em ent o fdesi gn ( shape, m ate ri al, co l or, and so f or th) i m pover i shes othe r d es i g n er s’ p ale tt es . See , e.g., B run sw ickC o rp. v. B ritish Se agul l Lt d. , 35 F. 3d 1527( Fed. Ci r. 19 94) ( bl ack c ol or of b oa t e n gin es is fu n c tio n al b ec au se it is c om p at ible w ith b oa ts o f m an y d iffer en t c olo rs ). Q ua litex ’ s dete rm i nati o n tha t “c o l o r a l o ne , a t l ea sts o m et i m es , c anm eetthe bas ic legal req uirem en ts for u se as a trad em ark” (514 U
. S. at 16 6), m ea n s t h at th er e i s n o p e r se ru le a ga in st th is pract i ce. S ee al so Thom as & Be t t s Corp. v. Pandu i tCorp. , 13 8 F
. 3d 27 7, 2 99 ( 7th C ir. 1 99 8)
. The c o m po si ti o n o fthe r el ev an t m ar k etmatt er s. Butthe mor e r ud i m en ta r y a nd g en er althe e l ement

— al l si x-s i ded shapes ra therthan an i rr egul ar, per f or ate d hexagon; al l la b el s m ade fro m tin r athe r tha n a s pec i fi c tin l ab el ; a l l s ha des o fthe c o l o r pu r pl e r a the r tha n a s i ngl e s ha de

— th e m or e like ly i ti s th a tr e s t r i c t i n gi t s u s e w i l ls i g n i fi c a n t l y i mp a i r c o mp et itio n . See , e.g., Kee ne, 778 F.2d at34 3; Lor i l l ar d v
. Pri de, 28 F . 43 4 ( C .C .N .D . I ll. 18 86 ); Sai nt

- Gobai n Corp. v. 3M Co. , 90 U
. S. P.Q . 2 d 1425 (T.T.A
. B
. 2007). Fran ek’s towel i s of thi s i l k. H e has t ra dem ar ked the “co nfi gura ti on o fa r o und b ea cht o wel

. ” Eve r y o th erb ea cht o welm anufac tu re r is b ar re d f r o m u sin g t h e e n tir e s h ap e a s w ell12 N o. 09

- 2155

as an y othe r des ign sim il ar enou gh that cons um ers are l i kel y to confuse i t w i th Fr anek’ s ci rcl e ( m ostreg u lar p olygons, f or exam p le)

. Contras t F ra nek’ s m ar k with the i rr egul arhex ago n at i ss ue i n Kee neo r the g r ee n- g o l d hue i n Q ual i t ex . Thos e mar k s r e s t r i c tfe w de s i g n o pt i o ns f o r c o mpe t i t o r s . I nd e e d, they ar e s o dist i nctive t hat c om peti tor s’ o nl y r eas on t o co py the m woul d b e to t r ade o n the good w il l o fthe or igin al d es ign er . C f. Se r vi ceIde as , Inc . v. Tr aex Corp. , 84 6 F. 2d 11 18, 11 23–2 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) ( pu rpos eful copyi ng o f a be ver age se rv er ’ s a rbi tr ar y desi gn indic ate d a l ack of ae sthe ti c func ti o na l i ty )
. Tha t’ s no t so he re. A c ir cl e i s th e ki nd o fbas i c d es i gn tha t a pro du cerl i ke J ay Fr anco ado pts b ec au se a l te r na ti ve s ar e sc ar ce an d s o m e co nsum er s want t he shape re gar dle ss ofwh o m anufa cture s it. Th ere are only so m an y geom etric shap es; few are bot h at tr acti ve and si m ple eno ugh to f abr i cate cheapl y. C f. Q ua litex , 5 14 U. S
. a t 16 8– 69 ( func ti o na li ty do ct r i ne i nv al i dat es mar k s th atwoul d c r ea te c o l o r sc ar ci tyi n a par ti cul armar k et )
. And s o m e co ns um ers cr av e r o und to w els

—beac hg oe r s w ho p refer curved ed ges to sh arp cor ners , thos e w ho don’t w ant to be “squar e,” an d tho se w h o re l i sh the ci rcl e’ s s i m pli ci ty. A pro du cerbar re d f rom se ll i ngs ucht o wel s l o se s a pr o fi tabl e po r ti o n o fthe m arket

. The r eco rd does notdi vul ge m uch on these m at te r s, b ut any ho l es i n the e vi den ce a r e fi l l ed bythe TrafFix p re su m p tio n th at Fra n ek ’s m ar k is fu n c t ion al, a pre sum pti on he has f ai l ed to r ebut. Fr anek chose to purs u e a tr adem ar k, nota desi gn patent, to pro tectthe sty l ish c ircula ri ty ofhi s be achN o. 09

- 2155 13 to w el. C f. KohlerCo
. v. M oen Inc. , 12 F. 3d 63 2, 64 7 (7 th C ir. 1993) ( C ud ah y, J. , dissen ting) ( calling Franek ’s m ark a “ hor ribl e e xam ple []” o fa re gi ste re d tra dem ar k that sh o ul d ha v e b e e n a de s i g n pa t e nt )
. He mus t l i v e with that choi ce. W e ca nnot per m i t hi m to ke ep the i nd efi ni te c om p et itiv e ad va n ta ge in p ro d u c in g bea c h to w el s th is tr adem ar k c re ate s. I fFr anek i s worr i ed that consum er s wil l co nfuse J ay Fr an c o ’ s r o u n d b e a c h t o we l s wi th h i s , h e c a n i mpr i nt a d ist incti ve verbalo r pict or i alm ar k o n hi s t owels

. S ee Publ i ca t i ons Int e r nat i onal, 16 4 F
. 3d at 343; K e e ne, 77 8 F
. 2d at 347–48. That w ill e n able hi m to r eap the bene fi ts of h is b ra n d w h ile st ill pe rm itt in g h ea l th y c om p et itio n in the b each towel m ar ket

. A FFI RMED

8- 11- 10