Opinion ID: 774264
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Combination Claim

Text: 32 Yankee argues that the distinct combination of elements comprising its candle sizes and shapes, quantities sold, labels, Vertical Design System, and catalog stem from arbitrary choices and are thus inherently distinctive and entitled to trademark protection. See Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 768 (inherently distinctive marks are entitled to protection). Certain types of trade dress, however, can never be inherently distinctive. Wal-Mart, 529 U.S. at 212-14 (product design/configuration cannot be inherently distinctive); Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995) (color cannot be inherently distinctive). We find that Yankee's combination claim falls under the category of product design/configuration, and thus Yankee must prove that the dress has attained secondary meaning in order for it to be protected under the Lanham Act. Wal-Mart, 514 U.S. at 215. 33 Yankee argues that because its products are candles, all the trappings associated with the sale of the candle -- i.e., the candle-holders, the Vertical Display System, the labels, and the catalog -- constitute product packaging, or at the very least a tertium quid . . . akin to product packaging, categories of trade dress that may be inherently distinctive. See Wal-Mart, 529 U.S. at 215 (citing Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 773). 34 Although, as we explain below, Yankee's Housewarmer labels are product packaging and thus may be inherently distinctive, when combined with actual candle features, candle containers, the catalog, 10 and the in-store display system, the claim is no longer clearly a product-packaging one. Nor can the claim be categorized as product design/configuration, as that term has generally been defined to be limited to features inherent to the actual physical product: here, the candles. See Wal-Mart, 529 U.S. at 212 (describing cocktail shaker shaped as penguin as a product design); Lund, 163 F.3d at 34-36 (kitchen faucets). We also do not see this claim as akin to the restaurant decor upheld as potentially inherently distinctive in Two Pesos, which the Supreme Court later described as a tertium quid that is akin to product packaging. Wal-Mart, 529 U.S. 215; see also Best Cellars Inc. v. Grape Finds at Dupont, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 431, 451-53 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (finding that the overall layout of a wine store could be, and was, inherently distinctive). Yankee has not made a claim as to the overall appearance of an entire store, but has instead isolated certain characteristics of its candle display in stores. This strikes us as far closer to the design/configuration category. The fact that Yankee points to particular aspects of the candles themselves, namely their shapes and sizes, only confirms our categorization. 35 In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court instructed us how to deal with claims that were at the margin of product design/configuration: To the extent that there are close cases, we believe that courts should err on the side of caution and classify ambiguous trade dress as product design, thereby requiring secondary meaning. 529 U.S. at 215. We follow that advice here. To prevail on its combination claim, Yankee must show that its trade dress has acquired secondary meaning. 36