Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 288

529US1

Unit: $U38

[09-26-01 08:44:27] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 205 (2000)

213

Opinion of the Court

or a product ‘source,’ ” id., at 163. And where it is not rea-
sonable to assume consumer predisposition to take an afﬁxed
word or packaging as indication of source—where, for exam-
ple, the afﬁxed word is descriptive of the product (“Tasty”
bread) or of a geographic origin (“Georgia” peaches)—inher-
ent distinctiveness will not be found. That is why the stat-
ute generally excludes, from those word marks that can be
registered as inherently distinctive, words that are “merely
descriptive” of the goods, § 2(e)(1), 15 U. S. C. § 1052(e)(1), or
“primarily geographically descriptive of them,” see § 2(e)(2),
15 U. S. C. § 1052(e)(2).
In the case of product design, as in
the case of color, we think consumer predisposition to equate
the feature with the source does not exist. Consumers are
aware of the reality that, almost invariably, even the most
unusual of product designs—such as a cocktail shaker shaped
like a penguin—is intended not to identify the source, but
to render the product itself more useful or more appealing.
The fact that product design almost invariably serves pur-
poses other than source identiﬁcation not only renders inher-
ent distinctiveness problematic; it also renders application of
an inherent-distinctiveness principle more harmful to other
consumer interests. Consumers should not be deprived of
the beneﬁts of competition with regard to the utilitarian and
esthetic purposes that product design ordinarily serves by a
rule of law that facilitates plausible threats of suit against
new entrants based upon alleged inherent distinctiveness.
How easy it is to mount a plausible suit depends, of course,
upon the clarity of the test for inherent distinctiveness, and
where product design is concerned we have little conﬁdence
that a reasonably clear test can be devised. Respondent and
the United States as amicus curiae urge us to adopt for
product design relevant portions of the test formulated by
the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals for product pack-
aging in Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods, Ltd., 568
F. 2d 1342 (1977). That opinion, in determining the inherent
distinctiveness of a product’s packaging, considered, among