Opinion ID: 778370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: functionality analysis

Text: 26 Although the Lanham Act prohibits registration of a mark that comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(5), both parties recognize that not all aspects of functionality are precluded from protection. De jure, or legal, functionality must be distinguished from de facto functionality which still may support trademark protection. Clamp, 870 F.2d at 515. 27 De jure functionality ... means that the product is in its particular shape because it works better in this shape.... [B]efore an overall product configuration can be recognized as a trademark, the entire design must be arbitrary or non de jure functional. Textron, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 753 F.2d 1019, 1025 (Fed.Cir.1985) (quoted in Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.1999)). Thus, for example, even though a bottle is a de facto functional holder of liquid, the bottle's configuration may still qualify for trademark protection if its physical details are nonfunctional and have acquired secondary meaning. Id.; see also In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332 (C.C.P.A.1982) (holding that configuration of Glass Plus spray-bottle warranted trademark protection). 28 Here, Kinedyne has identified three aspects of the SAFECUT's configuration — ones it incorporated into its own cutter — that it believes are de jure functional, thus precluding trademark protection: the fully enclosed handle; the rounded edges; and the prong which guides the webbing to the recessed blade. Importantly, Tie Tech has not disputed, either before the trial court or on appeal, the following factual assertions made by Kinedyne: 29
30
31 3. The prong serves both to guide the webbing or belting onto the cutting blade and to reduce the chance of accidental cuts or injuries. 32 Rather, by focusing primarily on the shape of the SAFECUT's handle, Tie Tech points to evidence in the record that other alternative designs are available which adequately get the job done. 33 To begin, there is nothing inherently wrong with Kinedyne's interest in copying the SAFECUT's configuration: The requirement of nonfunctionality is based' on the judicial theory that there exists a fundamental right to compete through imitation of a competitor's product, which right can only be temporarily denied by the patent or copyright laws.' Clamp, 870 F.2d at 516 (quoting Morton-Norwich, 671 F.2d at 1336 (emphasis added)). Consequently, as early as Vuitton, we characterized the distinction between features which constitute the actual benefit that the consumer wishes to purchase, which do not engender trademark protection, as distinguished from an assurance that a particular entity made, sponsored, or endorsed a product, which, if incorporated into the product's design by virtue of arbitrary embellishment, does have trademark significance. 644 F.2d at 774 (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 164, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (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.). 34 Unfortunately for Tie Tech, it has not pointed to any evidence of distinctiveness of the SAFECUT design other than those elements essential to its effective use. Instead, Tie Tech suggests something different when it claims that it is not asking that Kinedyne be barred from having a webcutter with an enclosed blade, a slot and prong to guide the webbing into the blade, or even an opening through which the user can put their [sic] hand, but instead that Kinedyne should be barred from arranging those elements into a shape that mimics that of the SAFECUT®. In other words, Tie Tech argues that the overall appearance of its cutter, and not its separate functional parts, is what deserves protection as a non-functional aspect of its configuration. This cannot be the case. Where the plaintiff only offers evidence that the whole is nothing other than the assemblage of functional parts, our court has already foreclosed this argument, holding that it is semantic trickery to say that there is still some sort of separate' overall appearance' which is non-functional. Leatherman, 199 F.3d at 1013. 35 Likewise, Tie Tech's evidence of alternative designs fails to raise a material factual issue under Leatherman. As was the case with the pocket tool at issue in Leatherman, Tie Tech has presented evidence that there are other webcutters with a variety of appearances and features that effectively cut webbing. In particular, Tie Tech cites to a trade journal which evaluated several webcutters including the SAFECUT and another, the Ortho, which is strikingly similar to Kinedyne's original cutter and is described in the article as the simplest design — a rectangle with rounded corners [that] several testers found ... cut the webbing faster than any of the other products. As for the SAFECUT, its shape was lauded immediately; one tester was quoted as saying I like the grip.... It seems like a natural shape. Narrowing their preferences down to the Ortho and the SAFECUT, the article's testers 36 split on their ultimate preference in web cutters. But all present agreed that either of the two finalists — Ortho's Web Cutter or Tie Tech's Safecut — admirably did the job. They both ripped through the test webbing in a single motion. It simply came down to personal preference. (Emphasis added). 37 This evidence certainly supports Tie Tech's contention that adequate alternative designs exist which admirably do the job, but to Tie Tech's detriment, it goes further. Because the product review not only demonstrates that a design such as the Ortho may be highly functional and useful, it also undisputedly shows that the Ortho does not offer exactly the same features as [the SAFECUT], in particular the secured-grip handle, and thus fails as matter of law to support Tie Tech's interest in precluding competition by means of trademark protection. Id. at 1013-14 (emphasis in original). 38 In Leatherman we held that a product's manufacturer does not have rights under trade dress law to compel its competitors to resort to alternative designs which have a different set of advantages and disadvantages. Such is the realm of patent law. Id. at 1014 n. 7. Here, Tie Tech does not dispute that some customers may prefer a specific functional aspect of the SAFECUT, namely its closed-grip handle, even though other functional designs may ultimately get the job done just as well. As Leatherman reminds us, though, a customer's preference for a particular functional aspect of a product is wholly distinct from a customer's desire to be assured that a particular entity made, sponsored, or endorsed a product. Id. at 1012 (quoting Vuitton, 644 F.2d at 774). Whereas the latter concern encompasses the realm of trademark protection, the former does not. We therefore conclude on this record that the district court appropriately granted summary judgment in favor of Kinedyne. 39 AFFIRMED.