Opinion ID: 795959
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Functionality of Trade Dress

Text: 28 Lanard also challenges whether the protected trade dress in this case is actually nonfunctional, claiming that as a functional feature, it cannot be protected under trade dress law. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 29, 121 S.Ct. 1255, 149 L.Ed.2d 164 (2001). A trade dress's nonfunctional nature must be proven by the party asserting the trade dress protection. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3); TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 29, 121 S.Ct. 1255. 29 [A] product feature is functional, and cannot serve as a trademark, if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article, that is, if exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage. 30 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a trade dress is found to be functional, the mere fact that there are other non-infringing designs which would serve the same functional purpose is no defense to functionality. Antioch Co. v. Western Trimming Corp., 347 F.3d 150, 155 (6th Cir.2003). 31 Lanard's first objection to the district court's ruling on this issue is the court's clear misunderstanding of the role of functionality in a trade dress claim. The district court, in its order, stated that Lanard's defense of `functionality' is dismissed. This demonstrates an inappropriate shifting of the burden on the issue of functionality from General Motors to Lanard. The district court erred in its labeling of the issue of functionality as a defense to be proven by Lanard, instead of requiring General Motors to prove the absence of functionality as an element of trade dress infringement. However, this error is not reversible, and we must continue our de novo review of the issue in order to determine if General Motors has proven its trade dress to be non-functional. 32 General Motors, in proving non-functionality, relies heavily on the declaration of Mr. Robert Gula, Senior Vice President of Engineering and Product Development for AM General. Gula testified that the appearance of the Humvee was unrelated to its function, stating that AM General's prototype [of the Humvee] could have had a different appearance and still functioned the same way and that the appearance was not essential to the use or purpose of the vehicle. However, Gula's first statement is insufficient evidence for non-functionality as the mere existence of other potential designs is no defense to a design's functionality. Antioch, 347 F.3d at 155. What remains is Gula's statement that the appearance and styling was not essential to the use or purpose of the vehicle. 33 Lanard counters General Motors's proof on this issue by quoting from Gula's deposition testimony in which he stated [t]he shape [of the Humvee] was basically a byproduct of a vehicle that was designed to meet a performance specification. Gula continued to testify that part of those performance specifications were dimensional limitations, maximum width, maximum height, maximum overall length. [The Army] dictated approach and departure angle and I think breakover angle. These performance-based specifications all seem to directly affect the exterior appearance and styling of the Humvee. However, Gula later stated in his declaration that The Government's technical specification did not address the exterior appearance or the styling of the vehicle. 34 We conclude that General Motors must prevail on the issue of functionality. The trade dress in question has been defined as the exterior appearance and styling of the vehicle design which includes the grille, slanted and raised hood, split windshield, rectangular doors, squared edges, etc. We fail to see what function these elements perform. While we understand that General Motors bears the burden of proof of non-functionality, the plain appearance of the vehicle shows that the elements which comprise its trade dress are inherently non-functional. The statement by Gula regarding performance specifications, which was relied upon by Lanard, does not contribute to what makes up the Hummer/Humvee trade dress. In fact, General Motors has managed to significantly alter the height, width, and length of the Humvee in creating its newer models of the Hummer while maintaining the same trade dress as the original military vehicle. The military undoubtedly had function in mind when designing the Humvee. However, this does not necessarily mean that the exterior appearance and style was based on function; rather, it was more likely an unrelated afterthought. 35 Lanard repeatedly and dramatically stated during oral argument that it stakes its entire claim in this case on the issue of functionality. Unfortunately, this was like picking a show pony in a thoroughbred race. The district court was correct in holding that the Hummer/ Humvee trade dress is non-functional.