Opinion ID: 6499526
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The defendant’s intent in copying the trade

Text: dress For this factor, the “relevant inquiry is whether [defendant] intended to derive benefits from [plaintiff]’s reputation by using the [trade dress].” Viacom, 891 F.3d at 195–96. “Evidence that a defendant intends to ‘pass off’ its product as that of another can be found through imitation of packaging, similar distribution methods, and more.” Id. at 196. The district court did not address intent directly, but rather counted this factor against Beatriz Ball by finding that there was no “evidence of direct copying by Pampa Bay.” The district court’s conclusion was partially based on its observation of “widespread use of the alleged trade dress in the tabletop industry.” Defendant’s trial exhibits included various products from other manufacturers, each featuring some type of pearl rim and/or distorted features. The district court determined that the similarities among the products showed that the trade dress is not specific to Beatriz Ball. We disagree. A company’s trade dress consists of the totality of features and overall appearance. Blue Bell Bio-Med, 864 F.2d at 1256 (“The ‘trade dress’ of a product is essentially its total image and overall appearance.” (emphasis added)). Here, the district court isolated features of the Organic Pearl collection and found that other products that share one or two of those features embody the trade dress. But Beatriz Ball’s trade dress claim is not confined to products that include a pearl rim or that might include some distortions in the product’s shape. As described, the trade dress exhibits a 14 Case: 21-30029 Document: 00516391348 Page: 15 Date Filed: 07/12/2022 No. 21-30029 unique combination of features pertaining to the individuality of each piece, the irregular and unpredictable size and shape of the pearls, the undulated shape of the body, the metallic shine, and the overall, accurate impression that each piece was handmade with artisanal quality. None of the products presented at trial incorporated these elements holistically like the Pampa Bay products. 8 The district court should have compared the total integration of features comprising the Organic Pearl trade dress with the Pampa Bay products. Amazing Spaces, 608 F.3d at 251 (internal quotation marks omitted) (“The existence of non-distinctive elements does not eliminate the possibility of inherent distinctiveness in the trade dress as a whole.”). 9 The district court also erroneously relied on testimony suggesting a difference in quality between the products produced by Pampa Bay and Beatriz Ball. It determined that this testimony supported its finding that there was no copying. But the Lanham Act’s purpose is to protect against infringers who copy a party’s trade dress and infuse the market with lesser quality versions, thus confusing the relevant consumers and diluting the plaintiff’s reputation. Protection of trade dress, no less than of trademarks, serves the Act’s purpose to secure to the owner of the mark the goodwill 8 Perhaps the closest are the Lenox products, which still lack total incorporation of the trade dress since most of these products lack the metallic shine and are more uniform and regular in appearance. Nevertheless, the record shows that Lenox discontinued this line of products after Beatriz Ball complained of its infringement. 9 “A competitor can use elements of [plaintiff’s] trade dress, but [plaintiff] can protect a combination of visual elements that, taken together may create a distinctive visual impression. [Defendant] may enter the upscale Mexican fast-food market, but it may not copy [plaintiff’s] distinctive combination of layout and design features. [Defendant’s] imitation reflects not merely components of Taco Cabana’s trade dress, but its distinctive integration of components.” Taco Cabana Int'l, Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc., 932 F.2d 1113, 1118 (5th Cir. 1991), aff'd sub nom. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 112 S. Ct. 2753 (1992) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 15 Case: 21-30029 Document: 00516391348 Page: 16 Date Filed: 07/12/2022 No. 21-30029 of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers. National protection of trademarks is desirable, Congress concluded, because trademarks foster competition and the maintenance of quality by securing to the producer the benefits of good reputation. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 774, 112 S. Ct. 2753, 2760 (1992). Thus, a difference in quality between the products does not support a finding that there was no copying. Ultimately, a visual comparison of Pampa Bay’s products to the Organic Pearl line makes it difficult to deny that there was intent to copy. The designs are not just alike, they are indistinguishable in some cases. When two product designs are so very similar, an inference of intent is permissible. Moreover, evidence of deliberate copying can be a weighty factor if it appears the copying attempted to benefit from the perceived secondary meaning. See Ferrari S.P.A. v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235, 1239 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Audio Fidelity, Inc. v. High Fidelity Recordings, Inc., 283 F.2d 551, 558 (9th Cir. 1960)). The district court clearly erred in concluding otherwise. The sum of errors in the district court’s analysis of secondary meaning requires reconsideration of the evidence and overall re-weighing of the factors in accordance with this opinion. In requiring reconsideration on remand, however, we do not prescribe the outcome of these complex and interesting claims.