F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

M I L L E N N I U M L A

B O R A T O R I E S , I N C ., a California corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant
,

v

.

A M E R I T O X , L T D ., a Tex as limited partnership, Defendant-Appellee

. N o. 13-56577

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01063- MMA-J MA

OPI NI ON

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District J udg e, Presiding

Arg ued November 5, 2015 Submitted April 4, 2016 Pasadena, California

F iled April 4, 2016

B efore: Susan P. Graber and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit J udg es, and W iley

Y. Daniel, * Senior District J u dg e.

O pinion by

J udg e Gould

* T h e Ho n o rab l e W i l e y Y

. Dan i el, S en io r District J u d g e f or th e U .S. District Co u

rt f o r Co lo rad o , sittin g b y

d esig n atio n

.M I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 2

SUMMARY * *

Lanham Act

The pan e l reversed the district court’s g rant of summary judg ment in favor of the d e f en d a n t o n claims of trade dress infring ement u n d er the L anham Act a nd unfair competition under California B u siness and Professi o ns Code section 17200.

The panel held that there were triable issues as to whether the plaintiff’s claimed trade dress

 ̄ the visual lay ou t of a urine t est r eport

 ̄ w as functional, a nd thus disqualified for protection under the L anham Act. T h e panel remanded the case for further proceeding s.

COUNSEL

Randall E

. Kay (arg

ued), J ones Day
, San Dieg o, Calif o rnia; Craig E. Stewart and Matthew J

. Silveira, J ones Day
, San F rancisco, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eric D. Miller (arg

ued), Perkins Coie L L P, Seattle, W a shing ton; Matthew F

. Carmody and Michael R. O sterhoff, Perkins Coie L L P, Chicag o, I llinois, for Defendant-Appellee.

** T h is su m m ary co n stitu

t es n o p ar t o f t h e o p in io n o f th e co urt. It h as b eenp rep ared b y

co urt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.M I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 3

OP INION

GOUL D, Circuit J udg e :

Millennium L aboratories, I n c., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judg ment to Ameritox
, L TD, o n Millennium’s claims of tra d e d ress infring ement under the L anham Act and unfair competition under California B usiness a nd Professions Code section 17200. Millennium contends that: (1) the d istrict court applied the incorrect standard for assessing the functionality of Millennium’s trade dres s ; a nd ( 2) the d istrict court erred by g ranting summary judg ment to Ameritox on Millennium’s claims. At the heart of this appeal, we consider whether a product’s visual lay out is functional, defeating a claim for trade dress infring ement. The Ninth Circuit has n ot previously addre s s ed the functionality of any p ublication formats. B ut several ot her circuits have done so. Tools USA & E q u ip. Co. v. Champ Frame S traightening Equip., Inc.
, 87 F .3d 654, 657–59 (4th Cir. 1996) (concluding that the catalogu e pag e format was not functional); Comput. Care v. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc.
, 9 82 F .2d 1063, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that the computerg enerated report f

ormat was not functional); Hartford House, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. , 846 F

. 2d 1268, 1272–75 (10th Cir. 1988) (concluding that a g re e ting card format was not functional). W e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

I

Millennium and Ameritox c o mpete in the medic a t ion monitoring industry
, and sell urine-testing services to healthcare providers who treat chronic pain patient s w ith powerful pain medications. The testing services provided b y t hese c ompanies help the healthcare providers to e val u a t eM I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 4

whether patients are taking the pain medications as prescribed and to assess whether the patients are taking any nonprescri b e d d

rug s. Millennium g ives these test results using its R.A.D.A.R.® Report. Ameritox g ives its test r esults using its own RX GuardianTM Report.

A few y e ars before this lawsuit was filed, both companies

were revising the way they p resented the u r ine-test results. I n May 2011, Amer i t o x l a u n ched a new service known a s “RXGuardian CD,” which included a sing le g r aph. Millennium also intensified its efforts in late 2 0 1 0, and,
recog niz ing that c o n sumers could e asily read comparative and historical results in g raphical format, turned to its marketing team to “assist[ ] in the formatting on the report.” On J une 2, 2011, Millennium releas e d a sample R.A.D.A.R.® Report w ith its new desig n. Within the y ear, Ameritox b eg an to reevaluate its report a nd the u s e of a sing le g raph. Ameritox considered several desig n s, a l l of which used a desig n similar to Millennium’s new report, and introduced its new format in March 2012.

On April 30, 2012, Millenniu m s ued Ameritox for trade dress infring ement un d e r the L anham Act and for unfair competition under California B usiness and Professions Code section 17200, alleg ing t h a t Ameritox had copied its report desig n. Ameritox moved to dismiss the compla i n t , arguing that Mi llennium’s claimed trade dress was functional a nd therefore did n ot qualify for protection. The distr i c t c ourt dismissed the motion, ruling that “[ c] onstruing Millennium’s complaint libera l l y , it has alleg ed facts showing that competitors would not need the features of its report in order to compete without disadvantag e.”M I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 5

B e fore discovery was complete, Ameritox m oved for
summary judg ment on the L a

nham Act claim, ag ain arguing that Millennium’s trade dress w a s functional. The district
court g r a

nted the motion, and a lso conclude d t h at M i l l e n n i u m ’ s cl a i m f o r u n f a i r co m p e t i t i o n f

a i l ed

. Millennium appealed.

II

The L anham Act c r e at e s a cause of action for a party in j u r e d when another entity u ses “any word, term, name, sy mbol, or device, or a n y c o mbination thereof

. . . which is likely to cause confusion

. . . as to the orig in, sponsorship, o r approval of his or her g oods.” 1 5 U.S.C. § 1 1 2 5 (a)(1)(A). This statute p rovides protection f or a trade dress, Tr a

f F i x Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, I nc. , 532 U.S. 23, 29 ( 2 001); 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3) (1994 e d., S upp. V), which is the “total imag e o f a product,” including features such a s s i z e , shape, color, tex ture, and g raphics, D isc G olf Ass’n v

. Champion Discs, Inc.
, 158 F .3d 1002, 1005 n.3 (9 t h Cir. 1998).

L ike most intellectual property protections, trade dress protection ex ists to facilitate competition.

I t is w el l e stablished that trade dress can be protected u nder federal law. The desig n o r packing of a p r oduct may acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the product w ith its manufacturer or source; a nd

a desig n or pa ckag e w hich acquires this secondary meaning
, a ssuming other requisites

are met, is a trade dress which m ay not be used in a manner likely

to cause confusion a sM I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 6

to the orig in, sponsorship, or a pproval of th e g oods. I n these r espects protection for trade dress ex ists to promote competition.

TrafFix
, 532 U .S. at 28. B ut trade dress protection cannot be asserted for any functional features o f a product. 1 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. V) (“In a civil action for trade dress infring ement under th i s ch a pter for trade dress not reg istered on the principal r eg ister, the person who asserts trade dress protection has th e b u r d en of proving that the
matter soug ht to be protected is not functional.” ) ; 15 U .S.C. § 1125(a)(3) (1994 e d., Supp. V) ; TrafFix
, 532 U .S. at 29 (“This burden of proof g ives force to the well-established rule that trade dress protection may not be claim e d f o r product features that are functional.”); see also Clicks Billiards, Inc.

v. SixShooters, Inc.
, 251 F .3d 1252, 1258 ( 9 th Cir. 2 001); Disc Golf
, 158 F .3d at 1006; Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc’s B

. R. Others, Inc. , 826 F .2d 837, 842–43 (9th Cir. 1987).

1 “T o su stain a claim f

o r t rad e d ress in f

rin g em en t, [th e p lain tif

f ] m u s t p ro v e: (1 ) th at its claim ed d ress is n o n f u n ctio n al; (2 ) th at its claim ed d ress

serv es a so urce- id en tif

y in g ro le eith er b ecau se it is in h eren tly d istin ctiv e

o r h as acq u ired seco n d ary m ean in g ; an d (3 ) th at th e d ef en d an t’ s p ro d u ct

o r s erv ice creates a lik elih o o d o f co n su m er co n f u sio n .” Clicks Billia rd

s, In c. v. S ixS

h o o t ers, In c. , 25 1 F.3 d 1 25 2
, 1 2 5 8 (9 th Cir. 20 0 1 ) (citin g Disc Go lf
, 15 8 F.3 d at 1 0 0 5 an d Fu d d ru ckers, In c. v. Do c’s B.R. Oth ers, In c. , 8 2 6 F.2 d 8 3 7
, 8 4 1 (9 th

Cir. 1 98 7 )). T h e d i strict co urt g ran ted su m m ary j u d g m en t so lely on th e g ro un d t h a t Millen n iu m ’ s claim ed trad e d ress is f un ctio n al, w ith o u t assessin g th e o th er tw o req u ired elem en t s

. B e cau s e f un ctio n ality is th e so l e issu e b ef o re u s, w e assess o n ly th at elem en t. W e

m ak e clear, h o w ev er, th at o ur ru lin g do es n ot p reclu d e su m m ary j u dg m en t

o r p artial su

m m ary j u d g m en t f

o r A m erito x o r f

o r Millen n iu m o n eith er of th e o t h er tw o elem en ts if th e d istrict co urt co n clu d es t h at su ch is
ap p ro p riate.M I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 7

This limitation refle ct s a balance of considerations affecting th e competitive process and consumer benefit. Althoug h Cong ress does not want consumers to be confused about a product’s source, it also does not want to restrict the availability and u se o f functional features that enhance t h e utility of the product. TrafFix
, 532 U.S. at 28–29. This free competition allows manufac t u r e rs not only to compete with sometimes n ecessary features, but a lso to b u i l d off the features’ utility
, creating better pr o d u c t s. A s the Supreme Court has e x p l ained, “[ t] rade dress protection must subsist wi t h t h e recog nition that in many instances there is no prohibition ag a inst copying g oods and products. I n g eneral, unless an intellectual property r ig ht such as a patent o r copy rig ht p rotects an item, it will be subject to copying .” Id.
at 29. And c opy ing can lead to “ s a l u t ary effects in many instances.” Id.

Consider the following e x ample: a car manufacturer places head l i g hts at the f

ront of the vehicle to lig ht the road when dark. Such lig hts mig ht have som e d i s t i nctive appeal that c ould b e identified with the fi r s t m anufacturer to use them, but havi n g l i gh t s in the front of the vehicle to illuminate a dark road a lso h as a functional benefit. Once the public understands it can purchase a vehicle that allows safe driving at nig h t, o ther manufacturers may not even be able to compete without some similar lig htin g sy stem and the orig inal manufacturer may g ain a monopolistic strong h old on the ca r market, with effective barriers to e ntry a nd competition. The f

unctionality limitation on tr a d e dress protection e liminates this problematic result. At the same time, it is not hard to imag ine variants of the car lig hting
sy stem that a t some point would deserve trade dress
p r o tection. F or ex ample, while some lig hting sy stem a t the front of the car may be functional, a car manufacturer may beM I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 8

able to claim a protectable trade dress for a particular lig hting pattern such as using ten small li gh t b ulbs in a triangular pattern instead of one big lig ht bulb.

Here, the parties dispute whethe r the lay o ut o f Millennium’s R.A.D.A.R.® Report is functional. The parties also dispute the appropriate test to a p p l y to determine functi o n a l ity

. I nterpreting the L anham Act, the Supreme Co u r t h a s held that “a product feature is functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the
cost or quality of the arti cl e.” Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc.
, 456 U.S. 844, 850 n

. 1 0 (1982). Ex panding on this test, the Court e x plained further that a functional feature is one the “ex clusive use o f [ which]

. . . would put competitors
at a sig nificant no n -reputation-related disadvantag e.” Qualitex Co. v

. Jacobson P r o d s

. Co.
, 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995) (citing Inwood Labs.
, 456 U.S. at 850 n.10); see also TrafFix
, 532 U .S. at 3 2–33. The Court later c larified that the quoted passag e in Qualitex was not meant to replace the test outlined in I

nwood Laboratories
, but instead was meant to be

a secondary question. See TrafFix
, 5 3 2 U

. S

. a t 33 (“W here the desig n is functional under th e Inwood formulation there is no need to proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity

for the feature.”).

I n 1998, three y ears befo r e T r afFix clarified the relationship between Inwood Laboratories and Qualitex
, we outlined a four

- f

a ctor functionality test: “(1) whether the desig n y ields a utilitarian advanta g e , (2) whether a lternative desig ns are avai l ab l e , (3) whether advertising touts the utilitarian advantag es of the desig n, and (4) whether the particular desig n resu l t s from a comparatively simple o r inex pensive method of manufacture.” Disc Golf
, 1 58 F .3d at 1006. This test has been appl i e d most often in casesM I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 9

i n v o lving u tilitarian, phy sical devices. See, e.g. , Secalt S.A.

v. W uxi Shenxi Constr. Mach. Co.
, 668 F .3d 677, 685–87 (9th Cir. 2 0 1 2) (traction hoist); Talking R a in Beverage Co. v. S. Beach Beverage Co.
, 349 F

. 3d 601, 6 0 3–05 ( 9th Cir. 2 0 03) (bike b ottle). Disc Golf a nd the two cases on which it relied
t o create its four-factor test also involved phy sical de v i c e s

. 158 F .3d at 1 006 (F risbee® g o a l); Int’l J ensen , 4 F .3d at 821 (audio speaker); Clamp Mfg. Co. v. Enco Mfg. Co.
, 870 F .2d 512, 513(9th Cir. 1989) (cantilevered clamp).

B e cause most of these cases have focused on phy sical devices, w e have questioned whether the D isc Golf fourfactor test is appropriate in cases involving aesthetic trade d ress claims for desig ns o r lay outs. S e e Au-Tomotive Gol d

, Inc. v. Volkswagen of

Am., Inc.
, 457 F .3d 1062, 1072 n.8 (9th Cir. 2006) ( “O u r long -standing test for functionality larg ely

ex c luded aesthetic c o nsiderations

. . . .”); Clicks Billiards
, 251 F .3d at 1260 (“[ T h e Disc Golf ] factors do n ot translate easily from a

pplication in the contex t of utilitarian p ro d uct features

. . . to appl i c a t i o n i n the contex t of services

. . . . ” (citation omitted)). I nstead, w hen asse ssing these aesthetic
tr a d e d r e ss claims, we have focused our analy sis on the Qualitex lang uag e—whe t h er the protection of the desig n would put competitors at a disadvantag e. Au-Tomotive Gold
, 457 F .3d at 1072–73 (“In the case of a claim o f a es t hetic f u nctionality
, an alternative test inquires whether protection of the f eature as a trademark w ould impose a sig n ificant nonr e p ut ation-related competitive disadvantag e. ” ( c i t i n g T r a f F i x , 5 3 2 U .S. at 33)); Clicks Billiards
, 251 F .3d at 1261 (“[ T ] h e ultimate issue on functionality is whether Clicks’ ‘particular integ ration of elements leaves a multitude of alternatives to the’ pool hall ‘industry that w ould not prove confusing ly similar to’ its trade dress.”).M I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 10

B u t we have clari fied that this diverg ence b etween phy sical and aestheti c p r o d u c ts is not necessary

. I n A u

Tomotive Gold
, we held that after Qualitex and TrafFix
, “the
test for functionality proce e d s i n two steps.” Au-Tomotive G o l d
, 457 F .3d at 1072. F o r the first step, “ courts inqu i r e

w h ether the alleg ed ‘sig nificant non-trademark function’

s a t i s f i e s t h e I

n w o o d L a b o r a t o r i e s d e f i n i t i o n o f functiona l i t y

—‘essential to the use or purpose of the article [ or] affects [ its] cost or quality .’” Id. (alteration in or ig inal) (quoting TrafFix
, 532 U .S. at 32–33) (“Step One”). W e have since incorporated this part of Inwood Laboratories into the Disc G olf four-factor test. I d. at 1072 n

. 8

. I f the claimed trade dress is determined to be functional un der Step One, then “the inquiry

is over.” Id. at 1072. I f not, the court must proceed to the second step and address aesthetic f unctionality by “inquir[ ing ] whether pr o t ection of the feature as a trademark would impose a sig nificant n on-reputation-related competitive disadvantag e .” Id. (citing TrafFix
, 532 U.S. at 33) (“Step Two”).

Millennium argues that Disc Golf is inapplicable a nd should be abandoned. F irst, Millennium argues that the Disc Golf test was used only in c ases involving phy sical devices,
not in cases involving aesthetic f ormats. T hat argument, however, overlooks that the Disc Golf factor s r e f lect the Inwood Laboratories d efinition o f functionality —“essential
to the use o r purpose of the a rticle o r if it a f

f e c ts the c ost o r quality of the article.” See D isc Golf
, 158 F

. 3 d at 1006 (quoting Qualitex
, 514 U.S. a t 165). Moreover, Disc Golf did
not sug g est that the four factors were applicable o n ly to phy sic a l d evices, but held that the four factors were “[ t] o determine whether a p roduct feature is functional.” Id. Here, M i l lennium’s R.A.D.A.R.® Report lay out is a product feature.M I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 11

Second, Millennium ar g ues that the Disc Golf f actors should be re c o n s i d ered because some of the factors were omitted from the Supreme Court’s analy sis in TrafFix

. This
arg ument is unavailing

. The Supreme Court did not discredit the Disc Golf four-factor test, see TrafFix
, 532 U.S. at 32–35, and we have held already that the test still applies a fter Tra f F i x w as d ecided, Au-Tomotive Gold
, 457 F .3d at 1072, 1072 n.8; Talking Rain , 349 F

. 3d at 603.

III

W e r e v iew de novo a district court’s decision to g ra n t summary judg ment. Clicks Billiards
, 251 F .3d at 1257 (citing Balint v. Carson City
, 180 F .3d 1047, 1 050 ( 9 t h C i r. 1 999) (en banc)). W e must determine, viewing the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, w h e t h e r there a re any g enuine issues of material fact in dispute and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id. “[ F ]unctionality is g enerally view ed as an intensely factual issue.” Tie Tech, Inc. v. K i n e d yn e Corp.
, 296 F .3d 778, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Vuitton Et Fils S.A. v. J

. Y o u ng Enters., Inc.
, 6 44 F .2d 769, 775 (9th Cir. 19 8 1 ) ). Under the Au-Tomotive Gold two-step test, the district court erred by gr anting summary judg ment to Ameritox on Millennium’s trade dress claim.

A. Step One

Un d e r S t ep One, we first address whether there a re g enuine issues of m a terial fact reg arding functionality

. Millennium describes its a l l eg e d trade dress as f ollows: a “g raphical format” which includes “side-by -side presentation of a bell curve on the left, and a h i s t o r ical plot g raph on theM I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 12

rig ht”; the format u s e s “a combination of bold and dashed l i n e s on the bell curve g r aph and a combination of numbe rs and let t e r s o n the plot g raph on the r ig ht”; the r eport u ses “little verbiag e to a ccent the g raphical f eatures o f t h e combination of charts and p lace[ s] the combination o f
g raphical features wit h i n a solid border.” Millennium does
not assert that it should have a trade dress on g raphed r esults
g enerally
, but on the specific lay out t h a t i t c hose. F or g ood

reason: “[ I ] n e valuating functionality a s well as the other elements of a trade dress claim, it is crucial that we focus not

on the individual elements, b u t rather on the overall visual impression that th e c o mbination and arrang ement of those

e l e m e n ts create.” Clicks Billiards
, 251 F .3d a t 1259 (emphasis in orig inal). F u rther, “functional elements that a re separately unprotectable can be p rotected tog ether a s part o f a trade dress.” Fuddruckers , 826 F

. 2d at 842.

As noted above, the fo u r functionality factors a re “(1) w hether the desig n y ields a u tilitari a n a d vantag e , (2) whether alternative desig n s are av ai l a b le, (3) whether advertising touts the u tilitarian advantag es of the desig n, a nd (4) whether the particular desig n r esults from a comparatively simple or inex pensive method of manufactur e

. ” Disc Golf
, 158 F .3d at 1006. “ No one factor is dispositive; all should be weig hed collectively .” Id. W e m u s t consider, viewing the evidence in the lig h t most favorable to Millennium, whether

a jury could conclude that the R.A.D.A.R.® Report’s specific visual lay out is non-functional.

W e conclude that
, on the first f a c tor, g enuine issues o f materi a l f a c t remain reg arding whether Millennium’s claimed trade dress has any utilitarian advantag e. H e r e, Millennium used its marketing department and g r aphic desig ners to c reate

a “presentable product,” and t o “disting uish” MillenniumM I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 13

“from its competitors.” I n response to A meritox ’ s motion for
summary judg ment, Millennium also o ffered the declaration of J e nnifer Strickland, Millennium’s Director of Clinical Strateg y , who said that the elements of the “g raphical format

are aesthetic and non-fu n c t i onal.” A jury could conclude that, althoug h placing the g raphs on the same pag e serves the function o f a llowing easy and facile review of the m e d i c al results, the all e ge d trade dress—the side-by -side placement of the g raphs and other featu r e s , s uch as minimal tex t—is merely aesthetic, not functional. T he first factor thus weig hs
ag ainst summary

judg ment for Ameritox

. As to the second factor, a jury could conclude that many alternative desig ns were available. To g ive a few ex amples: There could be side-by

- side g r aphs a rrang e d in opposite order. There could be one g ra p h a b o ve the other. There could be pie charts instead of the charts u s e d

. One could fashion many such ex amples. The second factor, too, weig hs
ag ainst summary

judg ment for Ameritox

. Turning to the third factor, there is some question whether Millennium actually advertised the functionality of its report’s format. T houg h Millennium’s w ebsite promoted the R.A.D.A.R.® Report, a reasonable jury could f i n d that the advertisements f

ocused on the benef

i t s o f the “g r aphed results” rather than on the b enefits of the specific lay o ut. F o r t hat reason, the third factor weig hs ag a inst su m m a r y judg ment for Ameritox

.

F inally
, we conclude that the fourth factor is at most neutral. J ennifer Strickland’s d e c l aration noted that “[ t] he addition of the g r a

p hical form a t t o M illennium’s R.A.D.A.R.® Report has not resulted in a costs saving s,” but “has resulted in an increase in costs.”M I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 14

L ooking at the four D isc Golf factors tog eth e r , a nd viewin g the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to Millennium, we conclude that the district court e r r e d in
g ranting summary judg ment to A meritox

. The key p o i n t i s tha t even if a comparison of results is functional, this could be presented in many way s , a n d the p recise format used b y company asserting trade dress is not n ecessaril y f unctional. A reas o nable jury could c onclude that Millennium’s trade dress is n ot functional unde r S t e p O ne of the Au-Tomotive Gold two-step test.

B. Step Two

B e cause Millennium’s claimed trad e dress is not functional as a matter of law under Step One, we nex t assess whether it is functional a s a m a tter of law under Step Two—“whether protection of the featu r e a s a trademark

w o u l d i m p o s e a s i g n i f i c a n t n o n

- r e p u t a t i o n

- r e l a t e d competitive disadvantag e .” Au-Tomotive Gold
, 457 F .3d at 1072 (citing TrafFix , 532 U.S. at 33). Even assuming that a document describing the results o f ur i n e analy sis could be considered aesthetically function a l, “aesthetic f unctionality has been limited to product f ea t ures that serve an aesthetic
purpose wholly independent of any source identify ing function.” Id. a t 1073. H ere, Millennium’s chosen desig n for its test results was, at least in part, crafted to disting uish the R.A.D.A.R.® Report f

rom its competitors, and not simply to attrac t consumers. B ecause Millennium has presented evidence tha t the g raphical format served in part a sourceidentify ing function, we conclude that Millenni u m has presented enoug h evidence to allow a jury to as s ess the question of aesthetic functionality

.M I L L E N N I U M L A B S

. V

. A M E R I T O X 15

IV

W e also reverse the district court’s decisi o n to g rant summary judgment on Millennium’s California unfair competition claim. The d istrict court relied on Cleary v

. N e w s Corp.
, 30 F

. 3d 1255, 1 262–63 (9th Cir. 1994), which cla r i f ied that trade dress infring ement claims under the L anham Act and unfair competition claims under California B usiness and Professions Code section 1 7 2 0 0 are inex tricably linked. B ecause we hold that summary j u d gm ent was not appropriate on Millennium’s trade d ress claim, w e hold the same for its unfair competition claim.

V

W e reverse the district c ourt’s g rant of summary judg ment in favor of Ameritox o n M i l l e nnium’s claim o f trade dress infring ement under the L a nham Act and unfair competition under California B usiness and Professions Code section 1 7 2 0 0
, and we remand for further proceeding s. Althoug h it is functional to have a s y s t e m t o portray test results, there is a g enuine fact iss ue w hether the precise

manner in w hich Millennium presented its results was functional.

REVERSED and REMANDED

.