Opinion ID: 794951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Recognizing and Defining Vuitton's Trademark

Text: 24 We begin by assessing the degree to which plaintiff's trademark merits protection. Vuitton claims a new trademark, currently unregistered, consisting of a design plus color, that is, the traditional Vuitton Toile pattern design — entwined LV initials with the three already described motifs — displayed in the 33 Murakami colors and printed on a white or black background. In evaluating this mark's protectability, it is useful to be aware of the contours and limits of what Vuitton asserts is its trademark. 25 Notably, plaintiff does not claim a separate trademark in the colors alone. If it were to claim such a trademark, it would be required to show that the multicolors, set on a white or black background, create a separate and distinct commercial impression, apart from the monogram motif design, and that the colors serve to indicate Vuitton as the source. See 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 7:2, at 7-6.1 (4th ed. 2005) (McCarthy); see also Wal-Mart Stores, 529 U.S. at 212, 120 S.Ct. 1339 (We [have] held that a color could be protected as a trademark, but only upon a showing of secondary meaning.); Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 174, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (1995) (recognizing trademark in green-gold color of dry cleaning press pad). 26 Instead, plaintiff maintains that the polychromatic display is an essential part of its trademarked design, and that other handbag manufacturers are free to create their own brightly-colored handbags so long as they do not do so in a manner confusingly similar to the Vuitton combination of color and defined design. With regard to its own trademark, plaintiff asserts that it cannot dissect the color from the pattern.... [T]he strength of the mark here is ... the synergy between the colors and the [traditional] Louis Vuitton trademarks. 27 Vuitton does not seek to protect the overall look of its handbags, that is, its trade dress, but rather the narrower trademark it has established in its colored pattern. We have defined trade dress as the total image of a good as defined by its overall composition and design, including size, shape, color, texture, and graphics. Coach Leatherware Co. v. AnnTaylor, Inc., 933 F.2d 162, 168 (2d Cir.1991). By way of distinction the Lanham Act defines a trademark as any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof which is used or intended to be used by a person in commerce ... to identify and distinguish his or her goods ... from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown. 15 U.S.C. § 1127; see also Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539, 547 (6th Cir.2005) ([T]rademark and trade dress are two distinct concepts under the Lanham Act.); McCarthy §§ 8:1-8:3 (comparing trademarks and trade dress). Although trade dress and trademarks are both protected by § 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the fact that Vuitton seeks only protection of a trademark and not trade dress informs our understanding of the precision of its mark. 28 In determining whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection under § 43(a), Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992), the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable, id. The breadth of trademarks registrable under § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 1052, is not limited to word marks such as Nike. See Wal-Mart Stores, 529 U.S. at 209, 120 S.Ct. 1339. A person may also claim a trademark in a symbol, such as the Nike swoosh, see id., a device, or any combination thereof, see 15 U.S.C. § 1127. 29 To qualify for registration under § 2, or to establish protectability under § 43(a), a mark must be sufficiently `distinctive' to distinguish the registrant's goods from those of others. See Star Indus. v. Bacardi & Co., 412 F.3d 373, 381 (2d Cir. 2005). A plaintiff can establish a mark as distinctive by showing that the mark is inherently distinctive, i.e., intrinsically capable of identifying its source, or by demonstrating that the mark has acquired secondary meaning. Id. 30 Basic geometric shapes, basic letters, and single colors are not protectable as inherently distinctive. Id. at 383; see Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 162-63, 115 S.Ct. 1300. These symbols may be protected only upon a showing of secondary meaning. See Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 162-63, 115 S.Ct. 1300. However, stylized letters or shapes are not `basic,' and are protectable when original within the relevant market. Star Indus., 412 F.3d at 383 (holding stylized O on vodka bottle protectable as inherently distinctive, but weak, mark). 31 Vuitton's Multicolore mark, consisting of styled shapes and letters — the traditional Toile mark combined with the 33 Murakami colors — is original in the handbag market and inherently distinctive. The Toile pattern, on which it is based, has been a famous indicator of Louis Vuitton for over a century. The new Multicolore mark was created as a source-identifier for Vuitton in the new millennium. It is a strong mark. The mark earned praise and became famous almost instantly. We agree with the district court that the Multicolore mark is protectable both because it is inherently distinctive and because it has acquired secondary meaning.