Opinion ID: 774264
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Labels

Text: 37 Yankee also claims that unique features of its Housewarmer labels constitute an inherently distinctive trade dress. The district court found that the labels were also product configuration/design, and thus could not be inherently distinctive as a matter of law. Yankee I, 99 F. Supp. 2d at 153. We disagree. Detachable labels are a classic case of product packaging, and therefore may be inherently distinctive. See, e.g., Fun-Damental Too, 111 F.3d at 1000-01. Although the district court did not determine whether the Housewarmer labels were inherently distinctive, we are convinced that the label elements highlighted by Yankee do not meet the inherent distinctiveness test of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976). We therefore uphold the district court's grant of summary judgment on this basis. 38 Under Abercrombie, trademarks are divided into five categories: generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful. Lund, 163 F.3d at 39. If a mark falls into one of the latter three categories, it is deemed to be inherently distinctive. Id. Because the Abercrombie test was first applied to word marks, see Abercrombie, 537 F.2d at 9, it may be difficult to apply to visual marks or trade dress, Lund, 163 F.3d at 39. The Supreme Court, however, has endorsed the use of the Abercrombie test in the evaluation of visual marks, as well as in the assessment of product packaging trade dress claims. Id. (citing Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 768-69). 39 This Court, however, has noted that [w]e do not believe that the Supreme Court's endorsement of the Abercrombie test in Two Pesos requires a strict application of the Abercrombie test in all contexts . . . . Id. at 40. Instead, we have found it appropriate to supplement the somewhat bare-boned Abercrombie categories with the questions asked in Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1977). In Seabrook, inherent distinctiveness was determined by reference to: (i) whether the design was a common or basic one; (ii) whether it was unique or unusual in the field; (iii) whether it was a refinement of a common form of ornamentation; and (iv) whether it was capable of creating a commercial impression distinct from the accompanying words. 11 Wiley v. Am. Greetings Corp., 762 F.2d 139, 141 (1st Cir. 1985) (quoting Seabrook, 568 F.2d at 1344). In reality [the question is] whether the [dress] is so unique, unusual or unexpected in this market that it will automatically be perceived by customers as an indicator of origin. Lund, 163 F.3d at 40 (citing 1 J. McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 8.13 (4th ed. 1996)); see also McKernan v. Burek, 118 F. Supp. 2d 119, 124 (D. Mass. 2000) (describing this question as the Lund test for inherent distinctiveness). 40 Furthermore, in evaluating the inherent distinctiveness of Yankee's packaging, we must consider the fact that although Yankee's Housewarmer labels have obvious similarities, they also differ significantly from one another, in that they necessarily display different pictures corresponding to their particular candle fragrance. In other words, Yankee seeks to protect features common to a set of labels, as opposed to a specific label common to a host of Yankee goods. A trade dress plaintiff seeking to protect a series or line of products faces a particularly difficult challenge, as it must show that the appearance of the several products is sufficiently distinct and unique to merit protection. Landscape Forms, 113 F.3d at 380; Jeffrey Milstein Inc. v. Gregor, Lawlor, Roth, Inc., 58 F.3d 27, 32-33 (2d Cir. 1995). Moreover, trade dress claims across a line of products present special concerns in their ability to artificially limit competition, as such claims are generally broader in scope than claims relating to an individual item. Landscape Forms, 113 F.3d at 381. 41 Yankee has focused on the arbitrary choices it made in designing its label, and has for this reason introduced into evidence numerous possibilities of alternative label designs. While we appreciate that there are many different potential ways of creating a candle label, we think Yankee's approach ignores the focus of the inherent distinctiveness inquiry. As we detailed in the copyright section of this opinion, Yankee's label is essentially a combination of functional and common features. See Pubs. Int'l, 164 F.3d at 341 (gold coloring is a prime example of aesthetic functionality, because it connotes opulence). Although such a combination may be entitled to protection where secondary meaning is shown, Lund, 163 F.3d at 37, it is less likely to qualify as inherently distinctive, Jeffrey Milstein, 58 F.3d at 32. While the particular combination of common features may indeed be arbitrary, we do not think that any reasonable juror could conclude that these elements are so unique and unusual that they are source-indicative in the absence of secondary meaning. Lund, 163 F.3d at 40.