Opinion ID: 211779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Packaging

Text: Unlike product configuration, product packaging is capable of being inherently distinctive and thus a showing of secondary meaning may be unnecessary to prevail on a trade dress claim. Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 766. Packaging trade dress is inherently distinctive if its intrinsic nature identifies the source of a product. In this case, Hartco’s 04-1480, -1481, -1482, -1523 10 packaging trade dress includes the clear plastic package showing the product inside and the blue cardboard background with white lettering identifying the product and Hartco’s trademark “PROP’R-HITCHCOVER” with red lines in the upper left hand corner and a picture of the product in position on a vehicle and the product’s patent information in the upper right hand corner. Separately, these elements may be descriptive and thus not subject to trade dress protection. See Taco Cabana, 932 F.2d at 1120. However, taken together, Hartco’s trade dress is ipso facto inherently distinctive and thus, subject to protection under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. See id. We next determine whether the packaging of the accused trade dress creates a likelihood of consumer confusion. Under Fifth Circuit law, the seven elements relevant to determining consumer confusion are: “(1) the type of mark allegedly infringed, (2) the similarity between the two marks, (3) the similarity of the products or services, (4) the identity of the retail outlets and purchasers, (5) the identity of the advertising media used, (6) the defendant’s intent, and (7) any evidence of actual confusion.” Pebble Beach, 155 F.3d at 543. Here, Hartco presented evidence that the forms of trade dress are similar, the products are interchangeable, the purchasers and advertisers are the same, and there was actual confusion among customers. Hartco further presented evidence that Wang’s intended to copy Hartco’s packaging. We therefore find that appellants have not shown that the jury verdict is not supported by substantial evidence and we therefore affirm the district court’s denial of appellants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law for trade dress infringement on packaging. 04-1480, -1481, -1482, -1523 11