Source: http://legalarium.com/ttabquotes/Functional.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:05:01+00:00

Document:
Before October 30, 1998, there was no specific statutory reference to functionality as a ground for refusal, and functionality refusals were thus issued as failure-to-function refusals under §§1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, and 1127.
Section 2(e)(5) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(5), prohibits registration on the Principal Register of "matter that, as a whole, is functional."
Section 2(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(f), provides that matter that, as a whole, is functional may not be registered even on a showing that it has become distinctive.
Section 23(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §1091(c), provides that a mark that, as a whole, is functional may not be registered on the Supplemental Register.
Section 14(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §1064(3), lists functionality as a ground that can be raised in a cancellation proceeding more than five years after the date of registration.
Section 33(b)(8) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §1115(b)(8), lists functionality as a statutory defense to infringement in a suit involving an incontestable registration.
These amendments codified case law and the longstanding USPTO practice of refusing registration of functional matter.
The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm's reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, 35 U.S.C. §§154, 173, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product's functional features could be used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity).
In other words, the functionality doctrine ensures that protection for utilitarian product features be properly sought through a limited-duration utility patent, and not through the potentially unlimited protection of a trademark registration. Upon expiration of a utility patent, the invention covered by the patent enters the public domain, and the functional features disclosed in the patent may then be copied by others – thus encouraging advances in product design and manufacture. In TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 34-35, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2001), the Supreme Court reiterated this rationale, also noting that the functionality doctrine is not affected by evidence of acquired distinctiveness.
Thus, even where the evidence establishes that consumers have come to associate a functional product feature with a single source, trademark protection will not be granted in light of the public policy reasons stated. Id.
Our decisions distinguish de facto functional features, which may be entitled to trademark protection, from de jure functional features, which are not. ‘In essence, de facto functional means that the design of a product has a function, i.e., a bottle of any design holds fluid.' In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484, 222 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1984). De facto functionality does not necessarily defeat registrability. Morton-Norwich, 671 F.2d [1332,] at 1337, 213 USPQ  at 13 [(C.C.P.A. 1982)] (A design that is de facto functional, i.e., ‘functional' in the lay sense ... may be legally recognized as an indication of source.'). De jure functionality means that the product has a particular shape ‘because it works better in this shape.' Smith, 734 F.2d at 1484, 222 USPQ at 3.
However, in three Supreme Court decisions involving functionality – Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161 (1995), Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000), and TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 58 USPQ2d 1001 (2001) – the Court did not use the "de facto/de jure" distinction. Nor were these terms used when the Trademark Act was amended to expressly prohibit registration of matter that is "functional." Technical Corrections to Trademark Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 105-330, §201, 112 Stat. 3064, 3069 (1998). Accordingly, in general, examining attorneys no longer make this distinction in Office actions that refuse registration based on functionality.
De facto functionality is not a ground for refusal. In re Ennco Display Systems Inc., 56 USPQ2d 1279, 1282 (TTAB 2000); In re Parkway Machine Corp., 52 USPQ2d 1628, 1631 n.4 (TTAB 1999).
Trade dress is functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of a product or if it affects the cost or quality of the product. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.10 (1982).
A determination of functionality normally involves consideration of one or more of the following factors, commonly known as the "Morton-Norwich factors:"
In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1340-1341, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
Since relevant technical information is often more readily available to an applicant, the applicant will often be the source of most of the evidence relied upon by the examining attorney in establishing a prima facie case of functionality in an ex parte case. In re Teledyne Industries Inc., 696 F.2d 968, 971, 217 USPQ 9, 11 (Fed. Cir. 1982); In re Witco Corp., 14 USPQ2d 1557, 1560 (TTAB 1990). Therefore, when there is reason to believe that the proposed mark may be functional, in the first Office action, the examining attorney should require the applicant to provide information necessary to permit an informed determination concerning the registrability of the proposed mark, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b). See In re Babies Beat Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1729, 1731 (TTAB 1990) (registration properly refused where applicant failed to comply with examining attorney's request for copies of patent applications and other patent information). Accordingly, the examining attorney should: (1) ask the applicant to provide copies of any patent(s) or any pending or abandoned patent application(s); (2) ask the applicant to provide any available advertising, promotional or explanatory material concerning the goods/services, particularly any material specifically related to the features embodied in the proposed mark; (3) inquire of the applicant whether alternative designs are available; and (4) inquire whether the feature makes the product easier or cheaper to manufacture. The examining attorney should also examine the specimen(s) for information relevant to the Morton-Norwich factors, and conduct independent research to find advertising or promotional material.
It is not necessary to consider all the Morton-Norwich factors in every case. The Supreme Court held that "[w]here the design is functional under the Inwood formulation there is no need to proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity for the feature." TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001). Moreover, there is no requirement that all four of the Morton-Norwich factors weigh in favor of functionality to support a refusal. See Valu Engineering, 278 F.3d at 1276, 61 USPQ2d at 1427 ("once a product feature is found functional based on other considerations there is no need to consider the availability of alternative designs"); In re N.V. Organon, 79 USPQ2d 1639 (TTAB 2006) (orange flavor found functional based on applicant's touting of the utilitarian advantages of the flavor and the lack of evidence of acceptable alternatives, even though the mark was not the subject of a patent or patent application and there was no evidence that the flavor affected the cost of the product); In re Gibson Guitar Corp., 61 USPQ2d 1948 (TTAB 2001) (where there was no utility patent, and no evidence that applicant's guitar configuration resulted from a simpler or cheaper method of manufacture, these factors did not weigh in Board's decision).
Evidence that the proposed mark is the subject of a utility patent that discloses the utilitarian advantages of the configuration at issue can be sufficient in itself to support a functionality refusal. TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 33, 58 USPQ2d at 1007 ("There is no need, furthermore, to engage ... in speculation about other design possibilities); In re Howard Leight Industries, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1507, 1515 (TTAB 2006) ("[W]e find that applicant's expired utility patent, which specifically discloses and claims the utilitarian advantages of applicant's earplug configuration and which clearly shows that the shape at issue ‘affects the . . . quality of the device,' is a sufficient basis in itself for finding that the configuration is functional, given the strong weight to be accorded such patent evidence under TrafFix.") See TMEP §1202.02(a)(v)(A) for further discussion of utility patents.
It is important that the functionality inquiry focus on the utility of the feature or combination of features claimed as protectable trade dress. Morton-Norwich, 671 F.2d at 1338, 213 USPQ at 13. Generally, dissecting the design into its individual features and analyzing the utility of each separate feature does not establish that the overall design is functional. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(5); Teledyne Industries Inc., 696 F.2d at 971, 217 USPQ at 11. However, it is sometimes helpful to analyze the design from the standpoint of its various features. See Elmer v. ICC Fabricating Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 1579-80, 36 USPQ2d 1417, 1422-23 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (rejecting the argument that the combination of individually functional features in the configuration resulted in an overall nonfunctional product design); In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484, 222 USPQ 1, 2 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming the functionality determination, where the Board had initially considered the six individual features of the design, and then had concluded that the design as a whole was functional); In re Controls Corp. of America, 46 USPQ2d 1308, 1312 (TTAB 1998) (finding the entire configuration at issue functional because it consisted of several individual features, each of which was functional in nature).
Where the evidence shows that the overall design is functional, the inclusion of a few arbitrary or otherwise nonfunctional features in the design will not change the result. See Textron, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 753 F.2d 1019, 1025, 224 USPQ 625, 628-29 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Vico Products Mfg. Co., Inc., 229 USPQ 364, 368 (TTAB 1985).
If applicant's design are function, evidence of distinctiveness/secondary meaning is of no avail in supporting a claim for registration of the mark.
Because applicant's design is functional, any evidence of distinctiveness is of no avail to applicant in support of registration. See TrafFix, supra, 58 USPQ2d at 1007 ("Functionality having been established, whether MDI's dual-spring design has acquired secondary meaning need not be considered"). See also M-5 Steel Mfg. Co. v. O'Hagin's Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1086 (TTAB 2001).
In view of our conclusion that applicant's mark is functional, applicant's mark is unregistrable whether or not applicant has shown that its mark has acquired distinctiveness. In re Caterpillar, Inc., 43 USPQ2d at 1342.
On the subject of functionality, the Supreme Court has held: "Discussing trademarks, we have said "‘[i]n general terms, a product feature is functional,' and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.'" [Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165, 34 USPQ2d 1161 (1995)] (quoting Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850, n. 10 [214 USPQ 1] (1982)). TrafFix Devices, 58 USPQ2d at 1006.
The Supreme Court has stated: "In general terms, 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 article." Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.10 (1982).
The Supreme Court has called this "Inwood formulation" the "traditional rule" of functionality. TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001).
The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of functionality in cases both before and after the statutory change. The Court has stated "[i]n general terms, a product feature is functional, and cannot serve as a trademark, if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article." Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 34 USPQ2d at 1163-64, quoting Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n. 10 (1982).
A mark that comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional is not entitled to trademark protection.
The Trademark Act was amended expressly to provide that an application may be refused registration if the proposed mark "comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional." Section 2(e)(5) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(5).
The functionality statute only applies to applications filed after October 30, 1998.
The color of an item can be a functional feature of the goods even if it does not make the product perform better.
"The color black, as the Board noted, does not make the engines function better as engines. The paint on the external surface of an engine does not affect its mechanical purpose. Rather, the color black exhibits both color compatibility with a wide variety of boat colors and ability to make objects appear smaller. With these advantages for potential customers, the Board found a competitive need for engine manufacturers to use black on outboard engines. Based on this competitive need, the Board determined that the color was de jure functional. This court discerns no error in the Board's legal reasoning and no clear error in its factual findings."
In the typical color mark case, the final color of the product is normally dictated by aesthetic considerations.
If competitive factors restrict the availability of color, then color may be functional.
Burden of Proof: Once the opposer in a trademark opposition has made a prima facie showing of functionality, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove nonfunctionality.
Once the opposer in a trademark opposition has made a prima facie showing of functionality, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove nonfunctionality. "Where, as here, the opposer in a trademark opposition has made a prima facie showing of functionality, the burden shifts to the applicant to show nonfunctionality… The appropriateness of shifting the burden in a trademark opposition proceeding is supported by the recent amendment to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which shifts the burden of proving nonfunctionality of unregistered trade dress to applicant-plaintiff in civil actions for trade dress infringement, even without a prima facie showing by the alleged infringer. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3)(2000)."Valu Engineering, 61 USPQ2d at 1429 (citations and footnote omitted). See also Textron, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 753 F.2d 1029, 224 USPQ 625, 629 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("[A]n applicant for trademark protection has the burden to prove that the design is nonfunctional, once a prima facie case of functionality is made by the opponent").
Case Finding: In view of the fact that color, especially color that is dark in nature, both natural and dyed, is a common and useful feature in the field of coated abrasives, applicant's color purple is functional because "exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.
A functional feature is one the exclusive use of which would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.
A product feature is functional and cannot serve as a trademark if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or it affects the cost or quality of the article. A functional feature is one the exclusive use of which would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161 (1995), quoted in TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001).
Although the existence of a utility patent could weigh against applicant in terms of showing that the configuration is de jure functional, the absence of such a patent simply has no weight in our analysis.
In this case, applicant has stated that there is no utility patent, nor is there any evidence that its guitar configuration results from a simpler or cheaper method of manufacture. Accordingly, these factors do not weigh in our decision.3 FOOTNOTE 3 "The Examining Attorney characterizes the absence of a utility patent as a factor which weighs in applicant's favor. We disagree. Although the existence of a utility patent could weigh against applicant in terms of showing that the configuration is de jure functional, the absence of such a patent simply has no weight in our analysis."
With respect to the third factor, the availability of alternative designs, it is not clear, after TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., supra, whether the availability of alternatives weighs as a factor in applicant's favor.
Even assuming the availability of alternative designs remains a factor in determining whether a configuration is de jure functional, applicant has not shown that there are alternative guitar shapes which can produce the same sound as applicant's configuration. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the specific shape of applicant's guitar is necessary for such sound.
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(5)4 precludes registration of "any matter that, as a whole, is functional."5 FOOTNOTE 4 "This provision of the statute applies only to applications filed after October 30, 1998. Technical Corrections to Trademark Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 105-330, §201(b), 112 Stat. 3064 (1998). The present application was filed on August 5, 2002." FOOTNOTE 5 ""The term ‘as a whole' existed under prior decisional law and refers to the entirety of the mark itself, rather than the entirety of the class of goods in connection with which the mark is used." Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 61 USPQ2d 1422, at n.6 (Fed. Cir. (2002)."
The functionality doctrine is intended to encourage legitimate competition by maintaining the proper balance between trademark law and patent law.
As the Supreme Court observed in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1163-64 (1995): "The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm's reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product's functional features could be used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity). That is to say, the Lanham Act does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in creating a particular device; that is the purpose of the patent law and its period of exclusivity. The Lanham Act, furthermore, does not protect trade dress in a functional design simply because an investment has been made to encourage the public to associate a particular functional feature with a single manufacturer or seller."
Test for whether a mark is de jure functional.
In In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9 (CCPA 1982), the Court set forth four factors to be considered in determining whether a product design is de jure functional: (1) the existence of a utility patent that discloses the utilitarian advantages of the design; 2) advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages; 3) the availability to competitors of alternative designs; and 4) facts indicating that the design results from a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing the product.
The Federal Circuit, our primary reviewing court, looks at four factors when it considers the issue of functionality: (1) the existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design; (2) advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages; (3) the availability to competitors of functionally equivalent designs; and (4) facts indicating that the design results in a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing the product. Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (CCPA 1982). These are known as the Morton- Norwich factors.
The Federal Circuit, our primary reviewing court, looks at four factors when it considers the issue of functionality: (1) the existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design; (2) advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages; (3) the availability to competitors of functionally equivalent designs; and (4) facts indicating that the design results in a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing the product. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (CCPA 1982). See also Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Factors which are to be considered in the determination of whether a particular product design is superior include (1) the existence of a utility patent that discloses utilitarian advantages of the design, (2) advertising materials in which the utilitarian advantages of the design are touted, (3) the availability to competitors of alternative designs, and (4) facts indicating that the design results from a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing a product. See In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., supra.
As to the first element of the functionality test, the TTAB considers both existing and expired utility patents.
The first Morton-Norwich factor is the existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design. For purposes of this factor, we consider not only utility patents which are currently extant, but also expired utility patents. See TrafFix Devices Inc., supra, 58 USPQ2d at 1005-1007.6 FOOTNOTE 6 "Abandoned utility patent applications likewise are probative evidence under the first Morton-Norwich factor. See Valu Engineering Inc., supra, 61 USPQ2d at 1429."
Applicant's utility patent for the earplug has expired, and we are not persuaded by applicant's contention that the earplug configuration, with its functional advantages as disclosed and claimed in the patent, is now entitled to trademark registration. Rather, we find that the evidence of record establishes, prima facie, that applicant's design is functional, and that applicant has failed to rebut that presumption. Registration of the design as a trademark is barred under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(5), and we affirm the Trademark Examining Attorney's refusal on that ground.
A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional.
Burden of Proof: Burdens of proof regarding functionality.
FOOTNOTE 7 "The "statutory presumption that features are deemed functional until proved otherwise" to which the Court refers is applied in trade dress infringement actions brought under Trademark Act Section 43(a). See Trademark Act Section 43(a)(3), 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3). In ex parte proceedings before the Board, by contrast, the Office has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of functionality. Likewise, the plaintiff in an inter partes proceeding before the Board bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of functionality. If such prima facie case is established, the burden then shifts to the applicant (or registrant) to prove nonfunctionality. See Valu- Engineering Inc., supra, 61 USPQ2d at 1429, and cases cited therein. While the Section 43(a)(3) statutory presumption of functionality is not applicable in Board proceedings, we understand the Supreme Court's instructions in TrafFix, quoted above, to require us to regard a utility patent as "strong evidence" entitled to "great weight" in our determination of whether the Office (or an inter partes plaintiff) has established a prima facie case of functionality. If such prima facie case is supported by the existence of a utility patent claiming the design feature(s) in question, the burden shifts to the applicant (or registrant) to prove nonfunctionality."
In Valu Engineering, the Federal Circuit also confirmed that applicant bears the ultimate burden on the issue of functionality: "Where, as here, the opposer in a trademark opposition has made a prima facie showing of functionality, the burden shifts to the applicant to show nonfunctionality. (citations omitted) . . . The appropriateness of shifting the burden in a trademark opposition proceeding is supported by the recent amendments to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which shifts the burden of proving nonfunctionality of unregistered trade dress to applicant-plaintiff in civil actions for trade dress infringement, even without a prima facie showing by the alleged infringer. 15 U.S.C. § 125(a)(3)(2000)(footnote omitted)." Valu Engineering, 61 USPQ2d at 1429.
The patent and its prosecution history must be examined to see if the feature in question is shown as a useful part of the invention.
FOOTNOTE 8 "Professor McCarthy has pointed out that non-functional elements of an invention, such as "arbitrary curves" or a painted "ornamental pattern," should not and do not appear in the claims of a utility patent as asserted by the Supreme Court in the quoted language; "[t]herefore, the Court must have been referring to non-functional features that appear in a patent disclosure." J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §7:89 (4th ed. 2006)."
Professor McCarthy notes in this regard: "Prior case law cautions that a utility patent must be examined in detail to determine whether the disclosed configuration is really primarily functional or is just a non-functional shape that happens to be described or pictured as an incidental detail in a patent disclosure." J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §7:89 (4th ed. 2006).
Similarly, as McCarthy notes at §7:89.1, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has stated that "[a] patent may not be evidence of functionality in regard to things of a ‘purely arbitrary' or ‘mere design' nature which happen to be disclosed in the patent but which are not attributed any functional significance therein." Best Lock Corp. v. Schlage Lock Co., 413 F.2d 1195, 162 USPQ 552, 556 (C.C.P.A. 1969).
One cannot argue that a shape is functionally advantageous in order to obtain a utility patent and later assert that the same shape is non-functional in order to obtain trademark protection. Functional patent protection and trademark protection are mutually exclusive.
However, if the patent discloses the functionality of the design, "...this evidence is particularly entitled to great weight if the patent was applied for by the same person who now asserts trademark significance in the same configuration. A kind of estoppel arises. That is, one cannot argue that a shape is functionally advantageous in order to obtain a utility patent and later assert that the same shape is non-functional in order to obtain trademark protection. Functional patent protection and trademark protection are mutually exclusive. As one court stated, when the configuration is disclosed in a functional patent, and the patent expires, the public "now has its inning."" McCarthy, supra, at §7:89.1.
An applicant's utility patent as a whole, including its claims, is reviewed in determining functionality under the first Morton-Norwich factor.
Likewise, despite the Bose court's language in its Cable Electric Products citation parenthetical quoted above, we note that the court in Cable Electric Products had simply stated that "[i]n resolving the question of product design functionality for purposes of the Lanham Act, section 43(a), the fact finder is to consider the appearance of the products in issue. Reference to utility patent claims that are, or have been, asserted to read on either product, or to the appearance of the device depicted in figures included in the patent specification supporting such claims, must be done with caution. ... Claims may be capable of reading on many devices of strikingly different configuration. Thus, even the fact that the claims read on two commercial devices in the marketplace is not support in itself for a finding that one is a copy of the other or confusingly similar thereto for section 43(a) purposes. ... Hence, for purposes of evaluating the existence or impact of product copying, the relevance of patent figures depends on the extent to which their appearance is replicated in the actual marketplace product of the patentee. We have been shown no Ninth Circuit precedent to the contrary." Cable Electric Products, supra, 226 USPQ at 891 (emphasis in original).
The court's analysis thus appears to relate to the relevance of the patent claims to the confusing similarity issue in a Section 43(a) false designation of origin case, rather than to the pertinence, vel non, of the patent claims to the functionality issue.
In any event, to the extent that the Bose court's above-quoted statement might be read as standing for the proposition that patent claims are irrelevant to the functionality determination, we believe that it is superseded by the Supreme Court's decision in TrafFix, in which the Court repeatedly referred to a patent's claims as evidence of functionality. See TrafFix, 58 USPQ2d at 1005, 1006 (emphasis added): "[a] utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional"; "[w]here the expired patent claimed the features in question, one who seeks to establish trade dress protection must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional..."; "[i]n the case before us, the central advance claimed in the expired utility patents (the Sarkisian patents) is the dual-spring design"; "...the strong evidentiary inference of functionality based on the disclosure of the dual-spring design in the claims of the expired patents"; "[t]he rationale for the rule that the disclosure of a feature in the claims of a utility patent constitutes strong evidence of functionality is well illustrated in this case."
Finally, although we may and must look to the patent's claims in determining functionality, we are not limited to review of the claims.
As noted by Professor McCarthy in his discussion of TrafFix, "...while the Court continually talked about the evidentiary weight of what appeared in the patent claims, in fact the Court did not restrict the evidentiary use of a utility patent to its claims. The Supreme Court used both disclosures in the specification and argument made in the prosecution history as persuasive evidence of functionality." McCarthy, supra, at §7:89.
Likewise, McCarthy notes that "[i]t is proper to look to the disclosure (as distinguished from the claims) in a utility patent as evidence of the functionality of a shape. The Trademark Board has held that each embodiment of the invention described in a utility patent is equally functional for purposes of trademark law." McCarthy, supra, at 7:89.1, citing In re Bose, supra, and In re Edwards Ski Products Inc., 49 USPQ2d 2001 (TTAB 1999).
Thus, in this case, we have reviewed applicant's utility patent as a whole, including its claims, in determining functionality under the first Morton-Norwich factor.
Case Finding: Applicant's expired utility patent is strong evidence of the functionality of its earplug configuration.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Rather, we find that applicant's expired utility patent is strong evidence of the functionality of the earplug configuration applicant seeks to register.
These features are more than merely de facto functional; rather, the patent shows that the earplug is in this shape because it works better in this shape. Both the disclosures and the claims of the patent reveal that the shape of the earplug is not a mere arbitrary, ornamental or incidental flourish, but rather serves an essential function in the use of the earplug, and affects the quality of the earplug.
In short, applicant's expired utility patent demonstrates the utilitarian advantages of the earplug design at issue, and we find that the first Morton-Norwich factor accordingly weighs heavily in favor of a finding of functionality.
FOOTNOTE 9 "The Federal Circuit's footnote 5, inserted at this point in the quoted language, reads: "For example, a feature may be found functional where the feature ‘affects the cost or quality of the device.' TrafFix, 121 S.Ct. at 1263.""
Thus, under the Supreme Court's TrafFix test as interpreted by the Federal Circuit in Valu Engineering, because these "other considerations" (i.e., the disclosures and claims of the patent) establish the functionality of the design, "there is no need to consider the availability of alternative designs, because the feature cannot be given trade dress protection merely because there are alternative designs available." Valu Engineering, supra, 61 USPQ at 1427.
Even if some of these alternative designs are deemed to be functionally equivalent designs and thus are evidence in support of a finding of non-functionality, we find that this evidence is simply outweighed, in our functionality analysis, by the clear and strong evidence of functionality contained in applicant's expired utility patent.
However, even if some of these alternative designs are deemed to be functionally equivalent designs and thus are evidence in support of a finding of non-functionality, we find that this evidence is simply outweighed, in our functionality analysis, by the clear and strong evidence of functionality contained in applicant's expired utility patent.
Opposer asserts that the marks in both applications should not be registered both because the product design claimed is functional1 and because applicant has failed to show that the marks have acquired distinctiveness.
FOOTNOTE 1 "The use of the term "functional" in this opinion means "de jure functional" as discussed in cases, such as, In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9 (CCPA 1982). As the Board has stated, ". . . if the design of a product is so utilitarian as to constitute a superior design which others in the field need to be able to copy in order to compete effectively, it is de jure functional and is precluded from registration as a matter of public policy." In re Caterpillar Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1335, 1338 (TTAB 1997)(citations omitted)."
If a product is in a particular shape because it works better in that shape, the configuration is considered de jure functional.
Various formulations used to articulate the functionality doctrine.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has used a number of formulations to articulate the functionality doctrine. For example, in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.10 (1982), the Court stated, "In general terms, 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 article."
In Qualitex the Court stated further, "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 article, that is, if exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage." Qualitex, 34 USPQ2d at 1163-64, citing, Inwood, 214 USPQ at 4 n.10.
In Valu Engineering, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that its long-standing test for determining whether a particular product design is functional remained viable after TrafFix, noting, "We do not understand the Supreme Court's decision in TrafFix to have altered the Morton-Norwich analysis." Valu Engineering, 61 USPQ2d at 1427. The Federal Circuit and its predecessor court, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, have employed the Morton-Norwich analysis or test for nearly twenty-five years.
Morton-Norwich identifies the following factors to be considered in determining whether a particular design is functional: "(1) the existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design; (2) advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages; (3) the availability to competitors of functionally equivalent designs; and (4) facts indicating that the design results in a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing the product." Morton-Norwich, 213 USPQ at 15-16.
In TrafFix, the Supreme Court addressed and clarified the proper weight to be accorded a utility patent in that analysis, as well as the role of alternative designs.
In TrafFix, the Supreme Court addressed and clarified the proper weight to be accorded a utility patent in that analysis, as well as the role of alternative designs. TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., 58 USPQ2d at 1005.
The Supreme Court notes, "A prior patent, we conclude, has vital significance in resolving the trade dress claim. A utility patent is strong evidence that the features claimed therein are functional. . . Where the expired patent claimed the features in question, one who seeks to establish trade dress protection must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional, for instance by showing that it is merely an ornamental, incidental, or arbitrary aspect of the device." Id.
As to the role of alternative designs, the Federal Circuit observes in Valu Engineering: "Nothing in TrafFix suggests that consideration of alternative designs is not properly a part of the overall mix, and we do not read the Court's observations in TrafFix as rendering the availability of alternative designs irrelevant. Rather, we conclude that the Court merely noted that once a product feature is found functional based on other considerations, there is no need to consider the availability of alternative designs because the feature cannot be given trade dress protection merely because there are alternative designs available. But that does not mean that the availability of alternative designs cannot be a legitimate source of evidence to determine whether a feature is functional in the first place. "Valu Engineering, 61 USPQ2d at 1428 (footnote omitted).
Thus, in this case we must analyze each of the features claimed by applicant, the hexagonal base and the butterfly shaped grip, according to the four Morton-Norwich factors and determine whether opposer has established a prima facie case of functionality, and if so, whether applicant has rebutted that showing. If after that analysis we find either feature functional applicant's mark cannot be registered. In re R. M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 222 USPQ 1, 2 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Petersen Mfg. Co. v. Central Purchasing, Inc., 740 F.2d 1541, 222 USPQ 562, 569 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Any expired patent is potentially relevant if it covers the feature at issue, regardless of the owner.
To remove any doubt we first confirm that the fact that the Allen-Stevens Corporation, and not applicant, owned the patent in question is not relevant. In re Virshup, 42 USPQ2d 1403, 1405 (TTAB 1997). Any expired patent is potentially relevant if it covers the feature at issue, regardless of the owner.
The first Morton-Norwich element is satisfied where the patent is a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design, even if it is not primarily directed at this feature.
Applicant may be correct in noting that the hexagonal base was in use long prior to the patent application and that the patent was "directed to" a sealing means rather than the hexagonal base. Nonetheless, the patent language clearly refers to the functional advantage of the hexagonal base, that is, "to accommodate a standard wrench." Thus the terms of the patent indicate that the feature is a functional one and not an "ornamental, incidental, or arbitrary aspect of the device." As Morton-Norwich states, the patent here is "a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design," even if it is not primarily directed at this feature. Morton-Norwich, 213 USPQ at 15-16.
It is appropriate to analyze each element of a mark to determine if the mark, as a whole, is registerable.
As to applicant's dissection argument, opposer properly focuses on one of the two elements applicant claims in its mark, as we must. We must analyze each element to determine whether applicant's mark is functional overall. It is entirely proper and necessary for us to consider whether the hexagonal base or lip is functional to determine whether applicant's mark, as a whole, is registrable. In this case, applicant's mark consists of two principal features, each of which is significant in its own right. In re R. M. Smith, Inc., 222 USPQ at 2.
Even though the TTAB finds strong evidence under the "patent" factor that a patent discloses the utilitarian advantages of the hexagonal lip or base, it may consider the availability of alternative designs.
Alternative Designs – Even though we find strong evidence under the "patent" factor that a patent discloses the utilitarian advantages of the hexagonal lip or base, we will consider the availability of alternative designs. See Valu Engineering, 61 USPQ2d at 1427.
The TTAB may consider its previous decisions to reach the conclusion of whether an element of a mark is functional.
We also conclude that the hexagonal shape is in many ways optimal for this purpose. As opposer asserts, nuts and bolts, which are turned by wrenches, are hexagonal. In fact, this Board has previously considered and confirmed the functional advantages of the hexagonal shape of a product to permit tightening with a wrench when a wrench was not the recommended or preferred method for tightening. In re Pingel Enterprise Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1811, 1819-20 (TTAB 1998).
The presentation of evidence showing an absence of an item does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no such item exists.
Although applicant has presented catalogs containing examples of standard wrenches which are not wide enough to grip its hexagonal head, we cannot conclude that no such wrench exists, particularly in view of other evidence, such as applicant's own touting of this feature. In re Caterpillar, Inc., 43 USPQ2d at 1341.
In the case of a product-design mark, even the authorized use of such a mark by others, such as under a private label, may impair applicant's claim to rights in the mark.
Also, in the case of a product-design mark, such as the mark at issue here, even the authorized use of such a mark by others, such as under a private label, may impair applicant's claim to rights in the mark. See British Seagull Ltd. v. Brunswick Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1197, 1203-04 (TTAB 1993), aff'd, 35 F.3d 1527, 32 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1050 (1995).
Functional advantages may outweigh a minor increase in cost.
Accordingly, applicant's hexagonal base is not cheaper or easier to manufacture. If the evidence related to other factors, on balance, indicates that the hexagonal base is functional, the functional advantages may very well outweigh the rather minor increase in cost. See Pingel Enterprise Inc., 46 USPQ2d at 1821 (TTAB 1998); In re American National Can Co., 41 USPQ2d 1841, 1844-45 (TTAB 1997). Therefore, we conclude that this factor is neutral.
Where a proposed amended mark presents a difference commercial imporession from the originally claimed mark, the TTAB will apply the test of functionality to the originally submitted drawing.
With respect to this preliminary matter, we agree with the Examining Attorney that the proposed amended mark presents a mark with a different commercial impression from that originally claimed -- a larger circular ridge and a smaller more elevated circular ridge with all portions of the metal top from the larger circular ridge being claimed. See Trademark Rule 2.72(a) and TMEP § 807.14(a). See also Visa International Service Association v. Life-Code Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 740 (TTAB 1983). Accordingly, we must analyze the issues in this case on the basis of the originally submitted drawing and the mark shown thereon. We hasten to add, however, that we would reach the same results with respect to functionality and inherent distinctiveness were we to allow the amendment.
The mere fact that a product configuration has utility does not necessarily mean the configuration is unregistrable, because registrability depends upon the degree of design utility.
A configuration which is so utilitarian as to constitute a superior design, which competitors need to copy in order to compete effectively, is de jure functional and unregistrable. However, the mere fact that a product configuration has utility does not necessarily mean that the configuration is unregistrable, because registrability depends upon the degree of design utility. In re Morton- Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9, 15 (CCPA 1982). See also In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 222 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The fact that a good can be produced in other shapes does not detract from the functional characteristics of applicant's good.
We agree with the Examining Attorney that the fact that a container top can be produced in other shapes does not detract from the functional characteristics of applicant's can top. Applicant's is clearly one of a few superior designs. See In re Bose Corp., 772 F.2d 866, 227 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and In re Controls Corp. of America, 46 USPQ2d 1308 (TTAB 1998).
A superior design is one which performs a function better because of its configuration.
Accordingly, we conclude that applicant's container top design is a superior design because it performs the function better in this shape. It is therefore de jure functional.
A functional feature is one the "exclusive use of [which] would put competitors at a significant nonreputation- related disadvantage." Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 34 USPQ2d at 1164. See TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., 523 U.S. 23, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001).
Purpose of the functionality doctrine.
The functionality doctrine is intended to encourage legitimate competition by maintaining the proper balance between trademark law and patent law. As the Supreme Court observed in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 34 USPQ2d at 1163-64: "The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm's reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product's functional features could be used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity). That is to say, the Lanham Act does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in creating a particular device; that is the purpose of the patent law and its period of exclusivity. The Lanham Act, furthermore, does not protect trade dress in a functional design simply because an investment has been made to encourage the public to associate a particular functional feature with a single manufacturer or seller."
In an opposition proceeding, the applicant cannot argue the opposer's mark is functional without counterclaiming or petitioning to cancel opposer's marks on those grounds.
We have several problems with applicant's argument. First, to the extent that applicant is arguing that opposers' registered trademarks are functional, we note that it is improper to raise this defense without counterclaiming or petitioning to cancel the marks on this basis. Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. The Englander Co., 324 F.2d 186, 139 USPQ 285, 287 (CCPA 1963) ("[T]his is an opposition only and in an opposition, this court has always held that the validity of the opposer's registrations are not open to [collateral] attack"); Cosmetically Yours, Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 424 F.2d 1385, 1387, 165 USPQ 515, 517 (CCPA 1970) ("As long as the registration relied upon … remains uncanceled, it is treated as valid and entitled to the statutory presumptions"). In this case, opposers own or are licensed to use the registered marks CHICAGO BEARS and BEARS.
Even if applicant is correct in its argument that the existence of its patent application for its product is not relevant to a Morton-Norwich analysis regarding the registrability of its sound, the absence of a patent for the sound would only mean this factor would be neutral in the analysis of functionality.
Moreover, even if applicant is correct in its argument that the existence of its patent application for its product is not relevant to a Morton-Norwich analysis regarding the registrability of its sound, the absence of a patent for the sound would only mean this factor would be neutral in the analysis of functionality. See TrafFix Devices, 58 USPQ2d at 1006, and In re N.V. Organon, 79 USPQ2d at 1646.
In general terms, a product feature is functional, and cannot serve as a trademark, if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article; that is, if exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage."
The Supreme Court has stated "‘[i]n general terms, a product feature is functional,' and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article,' that is, if exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage." Qualitex v. Jacobson, 34 USPQ2d at 1163-64, quoting Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.10 (1982). See also, TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., 523 U.S. 23, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001).
The Federal Circuit looks at four factors when it considers the issue of functionality, and the factors are particularly helpful for analyzing functionality under the second approach: (1) the existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design; (2) advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages; (3) the availability to competitors of functionally equivalent designs; and (4) facts indicating that the design results in a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing the product.
The Federal Circuit, our primary reviewing court, looks at four factors, originally set out by a predecessor court, when it considers the issue of functionality, and the factors are particularly helpful for analyzing functionality under the second approach: (1) the existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design; (2) advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages; (3) the availability to competitors of functionally equivalent designs; and (4) facts indicating that the design results in a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing the product. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (CCPA 1982). See also Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The final Morton-Norwich factor considers whether the sound yields applicant a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing personal alarms.
The first Morton-Norwich factor focuses on whether a utility patent exists disclosing the advantages of the proposed mark.
The first Morton-Norwich factor focuses on whether a utility patent exists disclosing the advantages of the proposed mark. Applicant argues that it has a utility patent application for its product, not for its sound. This argument, however, is undercut by the application's focus on a digital wristwatch with a "loud alarm" as an exemplary embodiment for the product, and the application's description of an alarm of 80-125 decibels. The application does not note the degree of brightness for lights that could potentially be utilized in a visual alarm, or the types of odors that could be used for an olfactory alarm; but it does specify a decibel range for the audible alarm that would be characterized as loud.
The second Morton-Norwich factor focuses on whether advertising materials tout utilitarian advantages.
The third Morton-Norwich factor focuses on whether competitors would have functionally equivalent sounds available to them if applicant were accorded the exclusive rights attendant to registration.
The Trademark Act provides that a proposed mark may be refused registration if it comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional.
The Trademark Act provides that a proposed mark may be refused registration if it "comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional." Section 2(e)(5), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(5).
This standard contemplates at least two possible bases upon which a finding of functionality may be made. First, if the product feature is essential to the use or purpose of the article it may be found functional. Second, if the product feature affects the cost or quality of the article, so that exclusive right to use it would put a competitor at a disadvantage, this, too, may support a conclusion that the product feature is functional.
We note that this standard contemplates at least two possible bases upon which a finding of functionality may be made. First, if the product feature is essential to the use or purpose of the article it may be found functional. See TrafFix Devices, 58 USPQ2d at 1006 ("Where the design is functional under the Inwood formulation there is no need to proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity for the feature."). Second, if the product feature affects the cost or quality of the article, so that exclusive right to use it would put a competitor at a disadvantage, this, too, may support a conclusion that the product feature is functional.
When a proposed mark has been found functional on other grounds, it is not necessary for the record to also show use of applicant's particular sound would be a competitive necessity.
Of course, as already noted, when a proposed mark has been found functional on other grounds, it is not necessary for the record to also show use of applicant's particular sound would be a competitive necessity. See Valu Engineering, 61 USPQ2d at 1427.
Where the description of the sound is not limited to a particular volume, it must be considered to encompass all reasonable degrees of loudness for the sound.
Applicant has argued that it is not seeking to register a sound of any particular loudness. Equally significant, however, is that the description of the sound is not limited to a particular volume. Thus, we must consider it to encompass all reasonable degrees of loudness for an alarm sound. Cf. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C. J. Webb, Inc., 442 F.2d 1376, 170 USPQ 35, 36 (CCPA 1971) ("Webb's application is not limited to the mark depicted in any special form. In trying to visualize what other forms the mark might appear in, we are aided by the specimens submitted with Webb's application.").
Case Finding: Applicant has explained, and the record shows, that the sound of its product has no bearing on the cost or ease of manufacture of its alarms. This factor is neutral.
Applicant has explained, and the record shows, that the sound of its product has no bearing on the cost or ease of manufacture of its alarms. This factor is neutral.
Case Finding: Applicant's advertising touts a critical feature of its sound, as emitted by the identified goods. This factor favors a finding of functionality.
Applicant's advertising clearly extols the loudness of the alarm sound, much more than the engineering of the product that produces the sound. Applicant has admitted as much. See January 22, 2008 response, child's bracelet application ("the advertising touts the degree of loudness")(emphasis in original). The advertising material does not tout the particular frequencies of the sound pulses or the pattern of the pulses, but applicant has admitted "[t]he volume of the alarm is critical." See September 14, 2005 response to office action, child's bracelet application. Thus, applicant's advertising touts a critical feature of its sound, as emitted by the identified goods. This factor favors a finding of functionality.
Case Finding: Moreover, it is clear from the record that applicant's alarm emits a loud sound and that the loudness of the sound is an essential feature of the product.
Moreover, it is clear from the record that applicant's alarm emits a loud sound and that the loudness of the sound is an essential feature of the product. For example, the specimen of use shows that applicant's sound is typically used in a loud manner. In addition, applicant has admitted "[t]he volume of the alarm is critical." See September 14, 2005 response to office action, child's bracelet application. Indeed, a soft alarm sound would not draw much attention.
Case Finding: The ability of applicant's products to emit a loud, pulsing sound is essential to their use or purpose. For that reason alone, the functionality refusal must be affirmed in regard to each application. However, we shall also consider the question whether the proposed mark is functional under the Morton-Norwich analysis.
In short, the ability of applicant's products to emit a loud, pulsing sound is essential to their use or purpose. For that reason alone, the functionality refusal must be affirmed in regard to each application. However, we shall also consider the question whether the proposed mark is functional under the Morton-Norwich analysis.
Case Finding: The sound proposed for registration is functional and not entitled to registration under either view of functionality.
In the cases at hand, we conclude that the sound proposed for registration is functional and not entitled to registration under either view of functionality. Quite simply, the use of an audible alarm is essential to the use or purpose of applicant's products. It is clear, for example, that applicant touts the loud volume of the sound emitted by its alarm watch (and emphasizes the loudness much more than the flashing LEDs). Similarly, the evidence regarding competitive personal security devices that applicant put into the record also shows the predominant use of loud sound as an alarm. In addition, the sound involves alternating sound pulses and silence, which the CPSC paper and other evidence shows is a more effective way to use sound as an alarm than is a steady sound.
Case Finding: Weighing all the Morton-Norwich factors in the balance, we conclude that the mark applicant has described in its application and proposes to register is functional and unregistrable. The functionality refusal is affirmed in each application, based on both the Inwood formulation of the sound being essential to the use or purpose of applicant's goods and under the Morton-Norwich analysis.
Weighing all the Morton-Norwich factors in the balance, we conclude that the mark applicant has described in its application and proposes to register is functional and unregistrable. The functionality refusal is affirmed in each application, based on both the Inwood formulation of the sound being essential to the use or purpose of applicant's goods and under the Morton-Norwich analysis.
Case Finding: While there may indeed be countless combinations of frequencies available for personal alarms utilizing the frequencies within the optimal range, registration of applicant's sound as described would deprive competitors of many of those options.
Thus, under applicant's analysis the thousands of frequencies within this range can be combined into countless variations and therefore applicant's particular combination of frequencies need not be employed by other makers of personal alarms. What applicant's argument fails to appreciate, however, is that the description of its mark only specifies that its sound pulses will be between 1500 Hz and 2300 Hz. Based on this description, applicant would be free to combine sound pulses for any of the frequencies within this range, a large swath of the optimal range of 1000 Hz to 3000 Hz. While there may indeed be countless combinations of frequencies available for personal alarms utilizing the frequencies within the optimal range, registration of applicant's sound as described would deprive competitors of many of those options. It matters not that applicant's actual sound may currently use only a handful of particular frequencies, for it would be free to change the combinations at any time and still have its sound fall within the ambit of the description. This factor favors a finding of functionality.
The third Morton-Norwich factor involves consideration of alternative designs.
Applicant carries a heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional.
Thus, the applicant has failed to carry the "heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional." Traffix, 58 USPQ2d at 1005.
A product feature is functional when it affects the cost or quality of the article.
As stated in TrafFix, 58 USPQ2d at 1006, a product feature is functional "when it affects the cost or quality of the article." (Emphasis added).
The Supreme Court's decision in TrafFix has not altered the Morton Norwich analysis.
The Supreme Court's decision in TrafFix has not altered the Morton Norwich analysis. See Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 61 USPQ2d at 1427.
A higher production cost of a product design does not detract from its functionality.
Accordingly, we find that the cost and complexity of manufacturing applicant's product design is comparable to some of his competitors. Nevertheless, even if applicant's motorcycle stands with this design are more costly to produce, a higher cost does not detract from its functionality.
The Federal Circuit has indicated that competition is the crux of the functionality inquiry.
The Federal Circuit has indicated that competition "is the crux of the functionality inquiry." Valu Engineering, 61 USPQ2d at 1427 (internal citations omitted).
The Supreme Court has called this "Inwood formulation" the "traditional rule" of functionality.
Section 2(e)(5) of the Trademark Act precludes registration of any matter that, as a whole, is functional.
Section 2(e)(5) of the Trademark Act precludes registration of "any matter that, as a whole, is functional."
The first Morton-Norwich factor is the existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design.
The determination of functionality is a question of fact, and depends on the totality of the evidence presented in each particular case.
The determination of functionality is a question of fact, and depends on the totality of the evidence presented in each particular case. In re Udor U.S.A. Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1978, 1979 (TTAB 2009).
An applicant's own advertising touting the utilitarian aspects of its product design is strong evidence supporting a functionality refusal.
The fourth and final factor is a consideration of whether applicant's design results from a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacture.
In general terms, 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 article.
As indicated above, the invention described in the patent and the proposed mark do not have to be identical for the patent to read on or apply to the proposed mark.
The availability of alternative designs is relevant to show that the design sought to be registered will preserve competition by ensuring competitors the right to compete effectively.
The availability of alternative designs is relevant to show that the design sought to be registered will "preserve competition by ensuring competitors the right to compete effectively." Id.; In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 213 USPQ at 13.
In the face of this showing, it was incumbent upon applicant to rebut why the patent does not disclose the utilitarian advantages of the proposed mark.
In the face of this showing, it was incumbent upon applicant to rebut why the patent does not disclose the utilitarian advantages of the proposed mark. See Textor, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 753 F.2d 1019, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (stating that once a prima facie case of functionality is made by an opponent, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove that the design is nonfunctional).
The best mode requirement is a safeguard against the desire on the part of some people to obtain patent protection without making a full disclosure as required by the statute.
"The best mode requirement is a safeguard against the desire on the part of some people to obtain patent protection without making a full disclosure as required by the statute. The requirement does not permit inventors to disclose only what they know to be their second-best embodiment, while retaining the best for themselves." MPEP § 2165 citing In re Nelson and Shabica, 280 F.2d 172, 126 USPQ 242, 253 (CCPA 1960).
Case Finding: Registration of the claimed matter could well hinder competitors who would not know if the features they used in the supporting base of their motorcycle stands might well subject them to a suit for trademark infringement.
Beyond this basic structure, and without any formal explanation of the specific elements which applicant claims as its mark, registration of the claimed matter could well hinder competitors who would not know if the features they used in the supporting base of their motorcycle stands, whose overall configurations are not dissimilar from those of applicant, might well subject them to a suit for trademark infringement.
"The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)." 37 CFR 183(a).
Without any advertising by the applicant on which to rely, the examining attorney turned to promotional materials published by applicant's competitors touting the functional features of motorcycle stands that incorporate the design of the proposed mark.
Without any advertising by the applicant on which to rely, the examining attorney turned to promotional materials published by applicant's competitors touting the functional features of motorcycle stands that incorporate the design of the proposed mark. See In re Gibson Guitar Corp., 61 USPQ2d 1948, 1951 (TTAB 2001) (referencing the advertisement of a competitor that used the identical shape to the configuration sought to be registered).
The availability of alternative designs does not convert a functional design into a non-functional design.
However, the availability of alternative designs does not convert a functional design into a non-functional design. TrafFix, 58 USPQ2d at 1007 ("Here, the functionality of the spring design means that competitors need not explore whether other spring juxtapositions might be used. The dual-spring design is not an arbitrary flourish in the configuration of MDI's product; it is the reason the device works. Other designs need not be attempted").
It is not necessary that the configuration designs for which trademark protection is sought be virtually identical to the invention described and claimed in the patent or that the patent must cover all facets of the proposed marks. The TTAB should look to the features disclosed in the patent which have been incorporated into the present product designs and the teachings of the patent with respect to these features.
The fact that the proposed mark comprises less than the entirety of the invention claimed in the patent is not dispositive. "We do not find it necessary that the configuration designs for which trademark protection is sought be "virtually identical to the invention described and claimed" in the patent or that the patent must "cover" all facets of the proposed marks. Instead we look to the features disclosed in the patent which have been incorporated into the present product designs and the teachings of the patent with respect to these features." In re Visual Communications Co., 51 USPQ2d 1141, 1143 (TTAB 1999).
Contrary to applicant's argument, even if the patent describes the proposed mark, the patent does disclose utilitarian advantages of the proposed mark because of the best mode requirement.
Applicant argues, in the alternative, that even if the patent describes the proposed mark, the patent does not disclose any utilitarian advantages of the proposed mark.5 To the contrary, applicant was required to present the best mode of the invention and the patent discloses that the design of the base is used to leverage support during operation. The summary of the invention provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he bass (sic) portion consists of a pair of arms to which are affixed a pair of fulcrum wheels and a handle for operation." Accordingly, the proposed mark is necessary to the operation of the motorcycle stand particularly, where as here, the proposed mark is identified as the best mode for carrying out the invention.
Listing of the Morton-Norwich factors.
The Federal Circuit, our primary reviewing court, looks at four factors when it considers the issue of functionality: (1) the existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design; (2) advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages; (3) the availability to competitors of functionally equivalent designs; and (4) facts indicating that the design results in a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing the product. Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (CCPA 1982). These are known as the "Morton-Norwich factors."
The mere fact that other designs are available does not necessarily mean that applicant's design is not functional.
The Federal Circuit has noted, however, that the mere fact that other designs are available does not necessarily mean that applicant's design is not functional. In this regard, the Federal Circuit has noted that the mere fact that other designs are available does not necessarily mean that applicant's design is not functional. In re Bose, 772 F.2d 866, 227 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("That another type of [design] would work equally as well does not negate that this [design] was designed functionally to enhance or at least not detract from the rest of the system . If the feature asserted to give a product distinctiveness is the best, or at least one, of a few superior designs for its de facto purpose, it follows that competition is hindered. Morton-Norwich does not rest on total elimination of competition in the goods." (emphasis in original)).
Where the patent claimed the features in question, one who seeks to establish trade dress protection must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional, for instance by showing that it is merely an ornamental, incidental or arbitrary aspect of the device.
Regarding the evidentiary value of utility patents in the functionality determination, the Supreme Court has instructed as follows: "A prior patent, we conclude, has vital significance in resolving the trade dress claim. A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. If trade dress protection is sought for those features the strong evidence of functionality based on the previous patent adds great weight to the statutory presumption that features are deemed functional until proved otherwise by the party seeking trade dress protection. Where the expired patent claimed the features in question, one who seeks to establish trade dress protection must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional, for instance by showing that it is merely an ornamental, incidental or arbitrary aspect of the device." TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., 58 USPQ2d at 1005.
The detailed description of the invention identifies the precise invention for which a patent is solicited, in such manner as to distinguish it from other inventions and from what is old. It must describe completely a specific embodiment of the process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter or improvement invented, and must explain the mode of operation or principle whenever applicable. The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention must be set forth.
The "detailed description of the invention" identifies "the precise invention for which a patent is solicited, in such manner as to distinguish it from other inventions and from what is old. It must describe completely a specific embodiment of the process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter or improvement invented, and must explain the mode of operation or principle whenever applicable. The best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention must be set forth." 37 CFR 1.71(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 112 ("The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention").
Case Finding: The advertisements by applicant's competitors tout the utilitarian advantages of motorcycle stands similar, if not identical, in design to the proposed mark in more than just generalized statements.
Applicant argues that the advertising does not describe, explain or reference any utilitarian aspects or advantages of the proposed mark; rather the advertising makes general statements that could be attributed to any motorcycle stand.12 We disagree. Statements such as "designed to allow a superb sturdy, non-flex performance," "[e]xtended arm provide (sic) extra leverage," "[l]ow effort one hand lift," "extraordinarily easy to use," "[t]he whole system is so strong, and its geometry so correct, that a bike can easily be rolled around while on the stand," and "[u]niversal design to fit all standard swing arm sportbikes" relate specifically to the design of the supporting base incorporated into applicant's proposed mark. Thus, we find that the advertisements by applicant's competitors tout the utilitarian advantages of motorcycle stands similar, if not identical, in design to the proposed mark in more than just generalized statements.
The functionality doctrine is intended to encourage legitimate competition by maintaining the proper balance between trademark law and patent law. As the Supreme Court observed in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1163-64 (1995): "The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm's reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product's functional features could be used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity). That is to say, the Lanham Act does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in creating a particular device; that is the purpose of the patent law and its period of exclusivity. The Lanham Act, furthermore, does not protect trade dress in a functional design simply because an investment has been made to encourage the public to associate a particular functional feature with a single manufacturer or seller."

References: §1052
 §1052
 §1091
 §1064
 §1115
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §201
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 §1202
 §1052
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1052
 § 1125
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §201
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1125
 § 125
 §7
 §7
 §7
 v. 
 §7
 §7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 807
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1052
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2165
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 v.