Opinion ID: 740489
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District court findings following our remand.

Text: 9 Following our remand for consideration of Columbia's defense that the design of the site furniture was functional, and, thus, ineligible for trade dress protection, the district court heard from additional witnesses and made the following findings: First, [w]hile it is unquestionably true that the Petoskey bench is an excellent and innovative design, it is clear from the evidence that there are a large number of available designs that can, with even a modest amount of creative effort, be utilized to compete effectively in terms of price, quality, and aesthetic appeal. Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 940 F.Supp. 663, 665 (S.D.N.Y.1996). Second, persuasive expert testimony established that several competitive designs already exist. Id. Third, Columbia failed to show that its overall business was adversely affected by the trade dress protection afforded to Landscape's products; and, in fact, the accused line of site furniture was a small fraction of Columbia's business. Id. at 666. The district court never found that Landscape's designs were recognized as such by consumers in the marketplace, or, in other words, that they had acquired secondary meaning. Indeed, when asked by Landscape's counsel to make such a finding, the court expressed doubt that there was enough of a record to do so.