Opinion ID: 795959
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elements and Ownership of Trade Dress

Text: 22 Before addressing the application of the trade dress infringement elements, we must first address Lanard's challenge to both the ownership of the Hummer and Humvee trade dress and what that trade dress is comprised of. Lanard's argument can be summed up in two statements. First, neither the district court, AM General, nor General Motors listed the appropriate elements constituting the protected trade dress. Second, the district court inappropriately lumped together the trade dress of the civilian Hummer vehicle (owned by General Motors) with the military Humvee vehicle (owned by AM General), thereby prejudicing many of Lanard's arguments against trade dress infringement. 23 [I]t will not do to solely identify in litigation a combination as `the trade dress.' Rather, the discrete elements which make up that combination should be separated out and identified in a list. McCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS § 8:3 (4th ed.2001). General Motors argues that the trade dress was properly identified as the exterior appearance and styling of the vehicles in question. However, 24 focus on the overall look of a product does not permit a plaintiff to dispense with an articulation of the specific elements which comprise its distinct dress. Without such a precise expression of the character and scope of the claimed trade dress, litigation will be difficult, as courts will be unable to evaluate how unique and unexpected the design elements are in the relevant market. 25 Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 113 F.3d 373, 381 (2d Cir.1997). General Motors argues that it met that burden in its summary judgment brief when it identified the trade dress elements as the exterior appearance and styling of the vehicle design which includes the grille, slanted and raised hood, split windshield, rectangular doors, squared edges, etc. While the district court did not repeat this list as the specific trade dress which Lanard infringed upon, we hold this is sufficient to fulfill the discrete elements requirement of a trade dress claim. 26 Lanard's only dispute that this description by General Motors is not an acceptable list of discrete elements involves the etc. at the end of the description. In requiring a list of discrete elements, we are looking to avoid vague and indeterminate references to the `overall appearance' or `look' of plaintiff's packaging. McCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS § 8:3. In the end, the question is whether or not the court and the parties coherently define exactly what the trade dress consists of and determine whether that trade dress is valid and if what the accused is doing is an infringement. Id. Based on the list of elements presented by General Motors, it can be understood exactly what they are looking to protect. The etc. marking must be ignored in such a listing as it does not define any further element to be included in the trade dress. See WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. & E.B. WHITE, THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE 46 (4th ed. 2001) (In formal writing, etc. is a misfit.). Because the listing is not vague and provides exact details as to what General Motors seeks to protect, we find the elements listed by General Motors to be sufficient to define exactly what constitutes the Hummer/ Humvee trade dress. 27 Lanard's second argument is that the district court treated the trade dress claims from AM General and General Motors as the same. The district court referred in its summary judgment order to the Hummer/Humvee Trade Dress as the trade dress on which the ATK vehicle infringed. The two plaintiffs also combined the trade dress claims of the Hummer and the Humvee throughout their summary judgment brief and subsequent reply brief. However, the design elements of each are not identical, as admitted to by an AM General representative: The HUMVEE contains certain design elements not present on the Hummer, including, but not limited to: `X'—shaped cross bars on the doors, a slant back with no windows, mounted weapons or a weapons turret, and a blackout headlight in the left front hood recess. While these distinctions appear to be significant changes to the exterior appearance and styling, they do not change the basic trade dress as defined by the discrete elements listed above. Both the military Humvee and the civilian Hummer share common appearance elements which constitute a trade dress (specifically, the grille, slanted and raised hood, split windshield, rectangular doors, and squared edges). The elements listed which were not a part of the civilian Hummer's design are also not listed in the discrete elements which make up the trade dress as alleged by General Motors/AM General. Therefore, the district court's combining of the Hummer and Humvee trade dresses into one trade dress comprising the common elements between those vehicles is permissible.