Opinion ID: 2801691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unregistered Trade Dress

Text: Apple claims elements from its iPhone 3G and 3GS products to define the asserted unregistered trade dress: a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners; a flat, clear surface covering the front of the product; a display screen under the clear surface; substantial black borders above and below the display screen and narrower black borders on ei- ther side of the screen; and when the device is on, a row of small dots on the display screen, a matrix of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners within the display screen, and an unchanging bottom dock of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners set off from the display’s other icons. Appellee’s Br. 10-11. As this trade dress is not registered on the principal federal trademark register, Apple “has the burden of proving that the claimed trade dress, taken as a whole, is not functional . . . .” See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(4)(A). Apple argues that the unregistered trade dress is nonfunctional under each of the Disc Golf factors that the Ninth Circuit uses to analyze functionality: “(1) whether 10 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. the design yields a utilitarian advantage, (2) whether alternative designs are available, (3) whether advertising touts the utilitarian advantages of the design, and (4) whether the particular design results from a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture.” See Disc Golf, 158 F.3d at 1006. However, the Supreme Court has more recently held that “a feature is also functional . . . when it affects the cost or quality of the device.” See TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 33. The Supreme Court’s holding was recognized by the Ninth Circuit as “short circuiting some of the Disc Golf factors.” Secalt, 668 F.3d at 686-87. Nevertheless, we explore Apple’s contentions on each of the Disc Golf factors and conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support a jury finding in favor of nonfunctionality on any factor.
Apple argues that “the iPhone’s physical design did not ‘contribute unusually . . . to the usability’ of the device.” Appellee’s Br. 61 (quoting J.A. 41095:11-12) (alteration in original). Apple further contends that the unregistered trade dress was “developed . . . not for ‘superior performance.’” Id. at 62 n.18. Neither “unusual usability” nor “superior performance,” however, is the standard used by the Ninth Circuit to determine whether there is any utilitarian advantage. The Ninth Circuit “has never held, as [plaintiff] suggests, that the product feature must provide superior utilitarian advantages. To the contrary, [the Ninth Circuit] has suggested that in order to establish nonfunctionality the party with the burden must demonstrate that the product feature serves no purpose other than identification.” Disc Golf, 158 F.3d at 1007 (internal quotation marks omitted). The requirement that the unregistered trade dress “serves no purpose other than identification” cannot be reasonably inferred from the evidence. Apple emphasizes a single aspect of its design, beauty, to imply the lack of APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 11 other advantages. But the evidence showed that the iPhone’s design pursued more than just beauty. Specifically, Apple’s executive testified that the theme for the design of the iPhone was: to create a new breakthrough design for a phone that was beautiful and simple and easy to use and created a beautiful, smooth surface that had a touchscreen and went right to the rim with the bezel around it and looking for a look that we found was beautiful and easy to use and appeal- ing. J.A. 40722-23 (emphases added). Moreover, Samsung cites extensive evidence in the record that showed the usability function of every single element in the unregistered trade dress. For example, rounded corners improve “pocketability” and “durability” and rectangular shape maximizes the display that can be accommodated. J.A. 40869-70; J.A. 42612-13. A flat clear surface on the front of the phone facilitates touch operation by fingers over a large display. J.A. 42616-17. The bezel protects the glass from impact when the phone is dropped. J.A. 40495. The borders around the display are sized to accommodate other components while minimizing the overall product dimensions. J.A. 40872. The row of dots in the user interface indicates multiple pages of application screens that are available. J.A. 41452-53. The icons allow users to differentiate the applications available to the users and the bottom dock of unchanging icons allows for quick access to the most commonly used applications. J.A. 42560-61; J.A. 40869-70. Apple rebuts none of this evidence. Apple conceded during oral argument that its trade dress “improved the quality [of the iPhone] in some respects.” Oral Arg. 56:09-17. It is thus clear that the unregistered trade dress has a utilitarian advantage. See Disc Golf, 158 F.3d at 1007. 12 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
The next factor requires that purported alternative designs “offer exactly the same features” as the asserted trade dress in order to show non-functionality. Tie Tech, 296 F.3d at 786 (quoting Leatherman, 199 F.3d at 101314). A manufacturer “does not have rights under trade dress law to compel its competitors to resort to alternative designs which have a different set of advantages and disadvantages.” Id. Apple, while asserting that there were “numerous alternative designs,” fails to show that any of these alternatives offered exactly the same features as the asserted trade dress. Appellee’s Br. 62. Apple simply catalogs the mere existence of other design possibilities embodied in rejected iPhone prototypes and other manufacturers’ smartphones. The “mere existence” of other designs, however, does not prove that the unregistered trade dress is non-functional. See Talking Rain, 349 F.3d at 604.
“If a seller advertises the utilitarian advantages of a particular feature, this constitutes strong evidence of functionality.” Disc Golf, 158 F.3d at 1009. An “inference” of a product feature’s utility in the plaintiff’s advertisement is enough to weigh in favor of functionality of a trade dress encompassing that feature. Id. Apple argues that its advertising was “[f]ar from touting any utilitarian advantage of the iPhone design . . . .” Appellee’s Br. 60. Apple relies on its executive’s testimony that an iPhone advertisement, portraying “the distinctive design very clearly,” was based on Apple’s “product as hero” approach. Id. (quoting J.A. 40641-42; 40644:22). The “product as hero” approach refers to Apple’s stylistic choice of making “the product the biggest, clearest, most obvious thing in [its] advertisements, often at the expense of anything else around it, to remove all the other eleAPPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 13 ments of communication so [the viewer] see[s] the product most predominantly in the marketing.” J.A. 40641-42. Apple’s arguments focusing on its stylistic choice, however, fail to address the substance of its advertisements. The substance of the iPhone advertisement relied upon by Apple gave viewers “the ability to see a bit about how it might work,” for example, “how flicking and scrolling and tapping and all these multitouch ideas simply [sic].” J.A. 40644:23-40645:2. Another advertisement cited by Apple similarly displayed the message, “[t]ouching is believing,” under a picture showing a user’s hand interacting with the graphical user interface of an iPhone. J.A. 24896. Apple fails to show that, on the substance, these demonstrations of the user interface on iPhone’s touch screen involved the elements claimed in Apple’s unregistered trade dress and why they were not touting the utilitarian advantage of the unregistered trade dress.
The fourth factor considers whether a functional benefit in the asserted trade dress arises from “economies in manufacture or use,” such as being “relatively simple or inexpensive to manufacture.” Disc Golf, 158 F.3d at 1009. Apple contends that “[t]he iPhone design did not result from a ‘comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture’” because Apple experienced manufacturing challenges. Appellee’s Br. 61 (quoting Talking Rain, 349 F.3d at 603). Apple’s manufacturing challenges, however, resulted from the durability considerations for the iPhone and not from the design of the unregistered trade dress. According to Apple’s witnesses, difficulties resulted from its choices of materials in using “hardened steel”; “very high, high grade of steel”; and, “glass that was not breakable enough, scratch resistant enough.” Id. (quoting J.A. 40495-96, 41097). These materials were chosen, for example, for the iPhone to survive a drop: 14 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. If you drop this, you don't have to worry about the ground hitting the glass. You have to worry about the band of steel surrounding the glass hitting the glass. . . . In order to, to make it work, we had to use very high, high grade of steel because we couldn’t have it sort of deflecting into the glass. J.A. 40495-96. The durability advantages that resulted from the manufacturing challenges, however, are outside the scope of what Apple defines as its unregistered trade dress. For the design elements that comprise Apple’s unregistered trade dress, Apple points to no evidence in the record to show they were not relatively simple or inexpensive to manufacture. See Disc Golf, 158 F.3d at 1009 (“[Plaintiff], which has the burden of proof, offered no evidence that the [asserted] design was not relatively simple or inexpensive to manufacture.”). In sum, Apple has failed to show that there was sub- stantial evidence in the record to support a jury finding in favor of non-functionality for the unregistered trade dress on any of the Disc Golf factors. Apple fails to rebut the evidence that the elements in the unregistered trade dress serve the functional purpose of improving usability. Rather, Apple focuses on the “beauty” of its design, even though Apple pursued both “beauty” and functionality in the design of the iPhone. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the unregistered trade dress is functional and therefore not protectable.