Opinion ID: 759187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Children's Factory manufactures and sells vinyl-covered indoor, soft-play products for children. Children's Factory, which has been in existence for over twelve years, sells its products primarily through distributors. Benee manufactures similar products, but sells to consumers directly. The parties stipulate that they compete in the same market and their products are comparably priced. At issue is an entire line of soft-play products which Benee allegedly copied from Children's Factory. Children's Factory brought suit for trade dress infringement under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and for unfair competition under Missouri common law. 2 A bench trial was conducted in September 1997 and the trial court entered a judgment for Benee on both counts finding that none of Children's Factory's products were entitled to protection under the Lanham Act. 3 The district court divided Children's Factory's products into two groups and found both groups unprotected under the Act. The district court concluded that certain products found in paragraph 8 of its opinion (p 8 products) had an inherently distinctive trade dress and were nonfunctional. The court ultimately determined, however, that these products were not protected because they were not likely to be confused with Benee's products. 3 The district court then concluded that the products found in paragraph 10 of its opinion (p 10 products) were not inherently distinctive or nonfunctional and, therefore, were not protected. 4 4 Children's Factory appealed both findings. First, with respect to the p 8 products, Children's Factory argues that they were likely to be confused with Benee's products. Second, with respect to the p 10 products, Children's Factory contends that they were inherently distinctive and nonfunctional. Benee cross appealed as to the p 8 products claiming that the products were not inherently distinctive or nonfunctional.