Some of Rose Art's packaging also combined features from more than one subgroup. In 1997, Geddes introduced a line of crayons and markers with packaging consisting of many of the elements present in Rose Art's trade dress. In 1998, Rose Art sued Geddes for trade dress infringement and sought to preliminarily enjoin Geddes from marketing its products in the allegedly infringing packaging. The New Jersey district court denied the motion, holding that Rose Art did not have protectable trade dress for its family of products. Specifically, the court noted that Rose Art had used multiple background color combinations and inconsistently used its band and lettering feature, and that the appearance of its logo varied.
Trade dress is an effective means for increasing consumer recognition and sales.
This underscores that marketing is just as important for trade dress as it is for word marks. The Rose Art case stresses that the plaintiff must first establish that its trade dress is consistently uniform to warrant protection before it must prove non-functionality and distinctiveness.