Opinion ID: 4301604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Strength of Yellowfin’s Trade Dress

Text: The District Court reasoned that because sweeping sheer lines are “ubiquitous” in the center-console fishing-boat market, “Yellowfin’s purportedly ‘distinctive’ feature deserves little protection.” Indeed, Wylie Nagel, Yellowfin’s founder, conceded that several other boats have a sweeping sheer line. Thus, the District Court concluded, Yellowfin’s sheer line is weak trade dress. Yellowfin pushes back on this reasoning, contending that even though sweeping sheer lines are common among fishing boats, its sweeping sheer line stands out from those of other boats—it is unique and, to consumers, synonymous with Yellowfin’s high-quality boats. Yellowfin provides the following excerpts from boating magazines to support this point: • “Yellowfin Yachts has earned a reputation for producing some of the most jaw-dropping center-console fishing machines on the market,” with “good looks and sleek design” that “are easily recognizable, even from far distances.” • “Ever wonder if you took the logos off many boats today whether you’d still be able to tell them apart? You’ll never have difficulty discerning a Yellowfin. From the proud bow to the sweeping sheer, a Yellowfin is unmistakable.” • “Looking at this 29-footer’s profile, you can’t possibly mistake it for anything but a Yellowfin with its distinctive proud bow and dramatically sloping sheer line.” These excerpts, however, hardly bolster Yellowfin’s argument. The first simply describes Yellowfin boats as “sleek” and “easily recognizable.” Although Yellowfin’s sheer line might contribute to the “sleekness” and, to an extent, the 9 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 10 of 33 recognizability of its boats, the excerpt leaves this to inference. And it takes quite an inferential leap to connect this excerpt, which makes no reference to the sheer line, to Yellowfin’s claim that its sheer line—one among many in the market—is so unique as to be synonymous with its product. The second excerpt is more probative. It homes in on the sweeping sheer line’s ability to signify a Yellowfin boat. But it also attributes recognizability to the “proud bow” of Yellowfin boats, which is not part of the claimed trade dress, and seemingly to other unnamed features as well, stating, “From the proud bow to the sweeping sheer, a Yellowfin is unmistakable.” (Emphasis added). Finally, the third excerpt mentions only the “proud bow and dramatically sloping sheer line” of a twenty-nine-foot Yellowfin boat. As with the “proud bow,” the “dramatically sloping” portion of Yellowfin’s sheer line is not part of its trade dress claim. 7 Thus, the third excerpt says nothing about the trade dress at issue in this case. Overall, even construed in the light most favorable to Yellowfin, these excerpts provide little support for Yellowfin’s claim that its sweeping sheer line is particularly strong trade dress. Aside from these excerpts, Yellowfin presents as evidence Nagler’s declaration, in which he stated that he sought to create boats “that would have a unique and enduring style,” that Yellowfin thus heavily markets its boats showing 7 Supra note 2. 10 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 11 of 33 off the sheer line, and that Yellowfin customers “comment on, and identify” the Yellowfin sheer line. A self-serving declaration “may create an issue of material fact and preclude summary judgment even if . . . uncorroborated.” United States v. Stein, 881 F.3d 853, 854 (11th Cir. 2018) (en banc). But that is not to say that such a declaration will necessarily preclude summary judgment. Id. at 859. Nagler’s statements do not focus on the signifying effect—i.e., the strength—of the Yellowfin sheer line. Rather, he merely relays that he intended to create boats with a unique and enduring style, that Yellowfin heavily advertises its boats and sometimes the advertisements refer to the sheer line directly, and that customers mention the sheer line.8 These statements fail to support the proposition that Yellowfin’s sheer line causes consumers to associate the sheer line with its source, bringing to their minds the high-quality boats manufactured by Yellowfin. In short, Yellowfin presents little evidence meaningfully supporting the strength of its trade dress. The effect of this shortcoming is amplified by the fact that many other boats in the relevant market have a sweeping sheer line. Cf. Fla. Int’l, 830 F.3d at 1257–58 (noting that “the strength of [Florida International 8 This last point is hearsay. Yellowfin offers Nagler’s out-of-court statement relaying what consumers have said for the truth it asserts—that customers comment on and identify Yellowfin’s sheer line. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). “The general rule is that inadmissible hearsay cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment.” Macuba v. Deboer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). 11 Case: 17-11176 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 12 of 33 University’s] word mark and [FIU] acronym” was naturally mitigated by “operat[ing] in a crowded field” of similar names and acronyms used by other Florida universities); Sun Banks of Fla., Inc. v. Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 651 F.2d 311, 315–16 (5th Cir. 1981) (explaining that extensive third-party use of a particular word in plaintiff’s trademark counsels against likely confusion). Even relatively weak trade dress, though, may be entitled to a narrow range of protections. See Fla. Int’l, 830 F.3d at 1260. We thus continue our inquiry.