Opinion ID: 4406177
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Functionality of the Chambord Trade Dress

Text: We review de novo the denial of a Rule 50 motion for judg‐ ment as a matter of law. Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 882 F.3d 642, 644 (7th Cir. 2018). “Because a jury has rendered a 6 No. 18‐3020 verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to that verdict.” Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., 642 F.3d 565, 567 (7th Cir. 2011). In our review, we do not make credibility de‐ terminations or reweigh the evidence; we need only deter‐ mine that there is more than “a mere scintilla of evidence” to support the verdict. May v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 716 F.3d 963, 971 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hossack v. Floor Covering Assoc. of Joliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)). “In other words, our job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of the evidence supports the jury’s verdict or if, instead, the jury was irrational to reach its conclusion.” Id. The Lanham Act permits a civil action against any person who uses “any word, term, name, symbol, or device” “in con‐ nection with any goods or services” in a manner which “is likely to cause confusion” as to the source of those goods or services. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The Act’s protection ex‐ tends to a product’s trade dress, which includes a product de‐ sign that is so distinctive it identifies the product’s source. Ar‐ lington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc., 847 F.3d 415, 418 (7th Cir. 2017); see also TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 28 (2001) (“The design or packaging of a product may acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the product with its manufacturer or source; and a design or package which acquires this secondary meaning … is a trade dress[.]”). As with any other trademark, infringement of a product’s trade dress is actionable under the Act. Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d at 418. At trial, Bodum was required to prove a number of ele‐ ments for the jury to find trade dress infringement—that it owns a valid trade dress in the Chambord design, that the trade dress is not functional, and that A Top’s SterlingPro was No. 18‐3020 7 likely to cause consumer confusion as to its source. See id. On appeal, A Top does not dispute that the SterlingPro copies the Chambord. Instead, A Top only challenges Bodum’s proof on the functionality of its claimed trade dress.1 Trademark protection for trade dress, unlike patent and copyright protection, has no time limit; the Act therefore does not protect features that are necessary for the use of a product, so as to prevent one competitor from maintaining a “perpet‐ ual and exclusive right to a useful product feature.” Id. (citing Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995)). The Supreme Court has explained that “‘a product feature is func‐ tional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or qual‐ ity of the article.’” Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165 (quoting Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10 (1982)). Even if a claimed trade dress does not satisfy this first test, “it can still be functional if it is a ‘competitive necessity,’ that is, if its exclusive use ‘would put competitors at a significant non‐rep‐ utation‐related disadvantage.’” Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d at 419 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32–33)); see also Spe‐ cialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., LP, 616 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 2010) (a design is functional where a product “looks the way it does in order to be a better [product], not in order to be a better way of identifying who made it”). Where, as here, the claimed trade dress is unregistered, it is the burden 1 In fact, at oral argument, A Top confirmed that it was not arguing that the SterlingPro did not copy the Chambord, but it instead argued that it “had a right to copy, right down to the last bolt,” because Bodum did not have a valid trade dress in the Chambord. 8 No. 18‐3020 of the party asserting protection to prove that the trade dress is not functional. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3). In deciding whether a trade dress element is functional, we consider several factors: (1) the existence of a utility patent, expired or unexpired, that involves or describes the func‐ tionality of an item’s design element; (2) the util‐ itarian properties of the item’s unpatented de‐ sign elements; (3) advertising of the item that touts the utilitarian advantages of the item’s de‐ sign elements; (4) the dearth of, or difficulty in creating, alternative designs for the item’s pur‐ pose; (5) the effect of the design feature on an item’s quality or cost. Ga.–Pac. Consumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). No one factor is dispositive. See id. at 728–31 (considering each factor sepa‐ rately to determine whether it weighs in favor of or against functionality); Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Bodum claims trade dress protection in the overall ap‐ pearance of the Chambord and identifies the following spe‐ cific elements as contributing to that distinctive look: the metal band surrounding the carafe that forms support feet and the handle attachment, the domed lid, the rounded knob atop the plunger, and the C‐shaped handle. See Comput. Care v. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992) (where plaintiff seeks to protect overall appearance of its trade dress, focus of analysis is on that total appearance rather than individual design elements in isolation). Bodum does No. 18‐3020 9 not claim a trade dress in the cylindrical carafe or the plunger, as it acknowledges those elements are functional for a French press coffeemaker. A Top argues Bodum failed to establish that the claimed Chambord features are not essential to its use and that these features do not affect the coffeemaker’s cost or quality. How‐ ever, in its argument, A Top consistently elides the distinction between a product’s “function” in the everyday meaning of the term and “functional” as a term of art used in trade dress law. Bodum does not claim that any French press coffeemaker with a handle, a domed top, or metal around the carafe in‐ fringes on its trade dress. Rather, it is the overall appearance of A Top’s SterlingPro, which has the same shaped handle, the same domed lid, the same shaped feet, the same rounded knob, and the same shaped metal frame as the Chambord, that Bodum objects to. Thus, to establish it has a valid trade dress, Bodum did not have to prove that something like a handle does not serve any function. It merely needed to prove that preventing competitors from copying the Chambord’s partic‐ ular design would not significantly disadvantage them from producing a competitive and cost‐efficient French press cof‐ feemaker. See Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d at 419. When properly framed in this manner, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the Chambord’s overall look was nonfunctional. First, regarding the utilitarian properties of the Chambord’s design elements, see Ga.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728, Bodum’s func‐ tionality expert Robert Anders testified about their nonutili‐ tarian nature. He testified that the only functional parts of the Chambord—the parts that are necessary to make French press coffee—are the plunger and cylindrical shape of the carafe. In 10 No. 18‐3020 contrast, Mr. Anders did not believe the particular C‐shape of the Chambord’s handle worked better than an alternatively shaped handle and, in fact, testified that he thought the C‐ shape was “not as ergonomically designed as it could be.” Mr. Anders further testified that the dome‐shaped lid was an “ar‐ bitrary design” because the lid “could be of any shape” in or‐ der to work, and the metal frame is “absolutely not” necessary for the Chambord to make French press coffee. A Top’s expert, Peter Bressler, agreed. He “didn’t see par‐ ticularly great advantage in the design of the handle, but [he] saw an advantage in having a handle.” Whether it is more ad‐ vantageous for a French press to have a handle, however, is not the pertinent inquiry; the question is whether there is an advantage to having this designed handle, to which Mr. Bressler agreed there is not. The same is true of the feet: Mr. Bressler testified he “didn’t see a particular advantage in the design of the feet, but [ ] saw the fact that it had feet, which, to [him], was a utilitarian advantage.” Again, this does not speak to any advantages of the design of the feet. Overall, Mr. Bressler testified that “[t]he utilitarian advantages … are not that clear.” This evidence weighs in favor of nonfunctionality be‐ cause it supports that the claimed Chambord features are “merely ornamental” and are not necessary to make the Chambord work better as a French press coffeemaker. Arling‐ ton Specialties, 847 F.3d at 420 (citation omitted).2 2A Top points to two changes Bodum made to the Chambord in re‐ sponse to safety issues the United States Consumer Product Safety Com‐ mission raised—reducing the size of the knob and redesigning the lid to fit deeper into the carafe—as evidence the knob and lid are functional. However, Bodum could have reduced the size of the knob and made it a flat disk or redesigned the deep‐fitting lid to be flat instead of domed No. 18‐3020 11 Next, A Top argues that Bodum admitted the Chambord design was functional in its advertising and thus failed to meet its burden of proving nonfunctionality. See Ga.–Pac. Con‐ sumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 730 (advertising that touts the de‐ sign’s “utilitarian advantages” can weigh in favor of function‐ ality). Indeed, Joergen Bodum, CEO of Bodum’s parent com‐ pany, testified regarding Chambord advertisements describ‐ ing the product as “functional” and about an interview he gave in which he described Bodum’s products as “function‐ driven.” However, he also explained that these references to functionality were not invoking the term’s legal definition but were merely intended to convey that Bodum’s products work. In fact, Bodum’s advertising for the Chambord never claimed any of its design features worked better than other options— for example, it never claimed the handle is an ergonomic shape nor that its four curved feet provide stability. Rather, the advertising focused on the classic look of the Chambord design. Thus, a reasonable jury could weigh this evidence against a finding of functionality in the legal trade dress sense. Additionally, Bodum introduced a plethora of evidence regarding the availability of alternative designs, which sup‐ ported the Chambord’s lack of functionality. Id. It introduced as trial exhibits competing manufacturers’ French presses fea‐ turing different design elements, including those made of dif‐ ferent materials, with differently shaped handles, lids, plunger knobs, and frames, those that do not have transpar‐ ent carafes or do not have feet, and those with differently while still remedying these safety concerns. There is no evidence that the appearance of the features as redesigned are necessary for a competitive product, from a use (or cost) perspective. 12 No. 18‐3020 shaped external structures surrounding the cylindrical carafe. See Appellee Br. at 4 (pictures of alternatively designed French presses introduced as trial exhibits). More im‐ portantly, Bodum introduced evidence that both it and A Top sell French presses with alternative designs and made of dif‐ ferent materials. Thus, there was ample evidence before the jury in Bodum’s favor on this factor. Finally, we must consider the cost or quality advantage test of functionality. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32; see also Ga.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 731. Again, Bodum pre‐ sented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that the Chambord’s design conferred no cost or quality ad‐ vantage that made it functional. Bodum’s expert, Mr. Anders, testified the Chambord design was “complex” and that there are “simpler ways of doing this.” He explained the more com‐ plex the structure, the more expensive the product is to man‐ ufacture, so he disagreed with A Top’s expert that the Cham‐ bord was the least expensive method to manufacture a French press. Mr. Anders also explained that plastic is generally cheaper to use than metal in manufacturing, so plastic‐framed French presses would be cheaper to manufacture than the metal‐framed Chambord. Joergen Bodum further supported Mr. Anders’s opinion in his testimony regarding the many different French presses Bodum produces. For example, Bodum’s “Bistro” French press does not have a metal frame, a domed lid, or a C‐shaped handle. Mr. Bodum testified that the Bistro is less expensive to produce (“maybe less than half of what it costs to make a Chambord”) and less time‐consuming to produce because it requires less material than the Chambord. Although the Bis‐ tro was a successful first product for the company, Mr. No. 18‐3020 13 Bodum testified he decided to produce the Chambord, a more complex and expensive product, in addition to the Bistro be‐ cause he was interested in its iconic French design. Mr. Bodum also discussed the manufacturing costs to produce Bodum’s various French press coffeemakers. He explained that the Chambord is neither the cheapest nor the most expen‐ sive French press Bodum sells.3 Thus, Mr. Bodum’s testimony supported that the Chambord’s overall design conferred no particular cost advantage that made it functional.4 3 A Top repeatedly states in its brief that Mr. Bodum testified the Chambord provides a cost advantage. The trial testimony A Top cites for the proposition, however, does not support this assertion. Though Mr. Bodum did answer affirmatively that the Chambord design “gives a cost advantage in manufacturing over other types of French presses,” it is abundantly clear from the surrounding answers that Mr. Bodum misspoke in answering this question. Immediately before this answer, Mr. Bodum explained that the Chambord is “one of the most expensive” cof‐ feemakers to manufacture, and immediately after, Mr. Bodum confirmed that the Chambord’s design does not “result from the fact that it was so inexpensive to manufacture.” A Top’s efforts to take Mr. Bodum’s mis‐ statement as an admission are therefore unavailing. 4 A Top relies on Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016), to argue that Bodum’s evidence regarding the relative costs of the materials used to make the Chambord is irrelevant and, therefore, that Bodum in‐ troduced nothing to show the Chambord is nonfunctional under the cost advantage test. Apple, a Federal Circuit case applying Ninth Circuit law, is not controlling here, but in any event, it is distinguishable. In Apple, the plaintiff argued that its unregistered trade dress in its product did not re‐ sult from a comparatively simple manufacturing process. Id. at 994. The Federal Circuit, however, noted that the difficulties plaintiff encountered in its manufacturing process resulted from its choice to use certain mate‐ rials to improve the durability (i.e., the function) of its product. Id. Thus, this evidence did not address any cost advantages or disadvantages of plaintiff’s design. Id. Here, however, Bodum introduced evidence that 14 No. 18‐3020 Indeed, Jian Liang, A Top’s CEO, testified that A Top pro‐ duces another French press with a plastic frame that is less expensive than the metal SterlingPro. This testimony further demonstrates that the Chambord’s design does not provide a cost advantage. Contrary to A Top’s argument, Bodum pro‐ vided evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that the Chambord’s appearance is costlier to manufacture than to de‐ sign around, which supports that the Chambord trade dress is not functional. See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 297–98 (7th Cir. 1998). Overall, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for the jury to have found Bodum’s claimed trade dress was non‐ functional. We cannot say the jury was irrational to reach this conclusion, so we affirm the denial of A Top’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.