Source: http://legalarium.com/ttabquotes/TradeDress.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:16:25+00:00

Document:
Trade dress constitutes a "symbol" or "device" within the meaning of §2 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 209-210 (2000). Trade dress originally included only the packaging or "dressing" of a product, but in recent years has been expanded to encompass the design of a product. It is usually defined as the "total image and overall appearance" of a product, or the totality of the elements, and "may include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics." Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 764 n.1 (1992).
Thus, trade dress includes the design of a product (i.e., the product shape or configuration), the packaging in which the product is sold (i.e., the "dressing" of a product), the color of the product or of the packaging in which the product is sold, and the flavor of the product. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000); Two Pesos, 505 U.S. 763; Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995); In re N.V. Organon, 79 USPQ2d 1639 (TTAB 2006). However, this is not an exhaustive list, because "almost anything at all that is capable of carrying meaning" may be used as a "symbol" or "device" and constitute trade dress that identifies the source or origin of a product. Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 162. When it is difficult to determine whether the proposed mark is product packaging or product design, such "ambiguous" trade dress is treated as product design. Wal-Mart Stores, 529 U.S. 205. Trade dress marks may be used in connection with goods and services.
In some cases, the nature of a potential trade dress mark may not be readily apparent. A determination whether the mark constitutes trade dress must be informed by the application content, including the drawing, the description of the mark, the identification of goods or services, and the specimen, if any. If it remains unclear whether the proposed mark constitutes trade dress, the examining attorney may call or e-mail the applicant to clarify the nature of the mark, or issue an Office action requiring information regarding the nature of the mark, as well as any other necessary clarifications, such as a clear drawing and an accurate description of the mark. 37 C.F.R. §61(b). The applicant's response would then confirm whether the proposed mark is trade dress.
When an applicant applies to register a product design, product packaging, color, or other trade dress for goods or services, the examining attorney must separately consider two substantive issues: (1) functionality; and (2) distinctiveness. See TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 28-29, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-1005 (2001); Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 775, 23 USPQ2d 1081, 1086 (1992) (only nonfunctional distinctive trade dress is protected). See TMEP §§1202.02(a) et seq. regarding functionality and TMEP §§1202.02(b) and 1212 et seq. regarding distinctiveness. In many cases, a refusal of registration may be necessary on both grounds. In any application where a product design is refused because it is functional, registration must also be refused on the ground that the proposed mark is nondistinctive since product design is never inherently distinctive. However, since product packaging may be inherently distinctive, in an application where product packaging is refused as functional, registration should also be refused on the ground that the proposed mark is nondistinctive. Even if it is ultimately determined that the product packaging is not functional, the alternative basis for refusal may stand.
If the proposed trade dress mark is ultimately determined to be functional, claims and evidence that the mark has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning are irrelevant and registration will be refused. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2001).
"was a "common" basic shape or design, whether it was unique or unusual in a particular field, [or] whether it was a mere refinement of a commonly-adopted and well-known form of ornamentation for a particular class of goods viewed by the public as a dress or ornamentation for the goods[.]"
Trade dress can be registered as a trademark.
As the Supreme Court has noted, "It is well established that trade dress can be protected under federal law. The design or packaging of a product may acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the product with its manufacturer or source; and a design or package which acquires this secondary meaning, assuming other requisites are met, is a trade dress which may not be used in a manner likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the goods. In these respects, protection for trade dress exists to protect competition." TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (2001).
Trade dress, including product designs, are registerable as trademarks.
Trade dress features, including product designs, may be registered as trademarks subject to certain conditions.
"Trade dress," "product design," and other similar terms can refer to product features for which trademark rights are claimed.
FOOTNOTE 6 "The courts and the public have used the terms "trade dress," "product design," and similar terms, often loosely and interchangeably, to refer to product features as to which trademark rights are claimed."
Product design almost always serves a purpose other than source identification and therefore care must be taken not to misuse or over-extend trademark right on trade dress.
However, the Court states further, "And in Wal- Mart, supra, we were careful to caution against misuse or over-extension of trade dress. We noted that product design almost invariably serves purposes other than source identification." Id., citing, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Bros. Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000).
A product design which is functional cannot be registered.
Primary among the "other requisites" to qualify for trademark protection is the "functionality" test.7 This requirement guards against "misuse" or "over-extension" of trade dress protection. FOOTNOTE 7 "Secondly, applicant must show that the product design has acquired distinctiveness. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1163 (1995)."
That is, a product design which is functional cannot be registered. Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Trade dress protection must subsist with the recognition that in many instances there is no prohibition against copying goods and products.
As the TrafFix Court observed: "Trade dress protection must subsist with the recognition that in many instances there is no prohibition against copying goods and products. In general, unless an intellectual property right such as a patent or copyright protects an item, it will be subject to copying. As the Court has explained, copying is not always discouraged or disfavored by the laws which preserve our competitive economy. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 9 USPQ2d 1847 (1989). Allowing competitors to copy will have salutary effects in many instances. "Reverse engineering of chemical and mechanical articles in the public domain often leads to significant advances in technology." Id." TrafFix, 58 USPQ2d at 1005.
A container for a liquid can be either a product or product packaging.
FOOTNOTE 8 "The possibility that a container for a liquid can be either a product or product packaging is acknowledged in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1069-70 (2000) ("a classic glass Coca-Cola bottle, for instance, may constitute packaging for those consumers who drink the Coke and then discard the bottle, but may constitute the product itself for those consumers who are bottle collectors, or part of the product itself for those consumers who buy Coke in the classic glass bottle, rather than a can, because they think it more stylish to drink from the former.")"
Case Finding: The alleged mark is trade dress in the nature of product packaging, not trade dress in the nature of a product configuration because the identified product applicant seeks to register the alleged mark for is beverage and not the container.

References: §2
 §1052
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §61
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.