Opinion ID: 774264
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purposes and Scope of Trade Dress Protection

Text: 22 Yankee's second set of claims, for trade dress infringement, is brought pursuant to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which provides protection against the use of any word, term, name, symbol, or device that is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the source of a product. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The Lanham Act extends protection not only to words and symbols, but also to trade dress, defined as the design and appearance of a product together with the elements making up the overall image that serves to identify the product presented to the consumer. Chrysler Corp. v. Silva, 118 F.3d 56, 58 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Indus. Corp., 111 F.3d 993, 999 (2d Cir. 1997)). The primary purpose of trade dress protection is to protect that which identifies a product's source. I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir. 1998). Courts recognize trade dress claims based both on product packaging and on product design/configuration. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 213-14 (2000). 23 In order for trade dress to be protected under § 43(a), a plaintiff must prove that the dress is: (i) used in commerce; (ii) non-functional; and (iii) distinctive. Lund, 163 F.3d at 36. Distinctiveness may be either inherent, that is, the intrinsic nature [of the trade dress] serves to identify a particular source, Wal-Mart, 529 U.S. at 210 (citing Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992)), or acquired, i.e., the trade dress has acquired a secondary meaning whereby the public views its primary significance . . . as identify[ing] the source of the product rather than the product itself, id. at 211 (quoting Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n.11 (1982)). Finally, to prove infringement of protected trade dress, the plaintiff must show that another's use of a similar trade dress is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the product's source. Lund, 163 F.3d at 43-44.