Opinion ID: 445240
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The False Designation of Origin Claim

Text: 13 Under both New Jersey law and federal law, the functional aspects of a product or service may not be protected under trademark law, or under the related unfair competition doctrines based on possible confusion as to the source of origin of the products or services. See Keene Corp. v. Paraflex Industries, Inc., 653 F.2d 822, 824 (3d Cir.1981); SK & F, Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 625 F.2d 1055, 1064-65 (3d Cir.1980). 6 This rule reflects a balancing of divergent social interests. The use of non-functional features of a product or service to identify its source is legally protected against imitation by competitors, because the value of such features in identifying the source of the goods or services outweighs the social interest in allowing competitors to copy them. Functional features, on the other hand, may not be legally protected methods of identification, regardless of their association with the original manufacturer, because their usefulness in identifying the source of the product or service is outweighed by the social interest in competition and improvements, which are advanced by giving competitors free access to those features. 14 The functionality of a feature of a product or service cannot be determined by the application of a mechanical test. Although various forms of the inquiry have been articulated, 7 the essence of the question is whether a particular feature of a product or service is substantially related to its value as a product or service, i.e., if the feature is part of the function served, or whether the primary value of a particular feature is the identification of the provider. See In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1337-40 (C.C.P.A.1982); Restatement of Torts Sec. 742 comment a (1938). Several courts have noted that the key policy served by barring the use of functional features for identification is the policy favoring competition, and that the functionality inquiry must be addressed in light of this policy. See Morton-Norwich Products, 671 F.2d at 1339; Truck Equipment Service Co. v. Fruehauf Corp., 536 F.2d 1210, 1218 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 861, 97 S.Ct. 164, 50 L.Ed.2d 139 (1976); Fotomat Corp. v. Cochran, 437 F.Supp. 1231, 1235 (D.Kan.1977). 15 The question of the functionality of the U.S.G.A. formula is not difficult. Its simple mathematical formula is the basic tool for deriving a handicap from a golfer's raw scores; as such, the formula is central to the function performed by the Data-Max products and services. The U.S.G.A., relying on Ideal Toy Corp. v. Plawner Toy Manufacturing Corp., 685 F.2d 78 (3d Cir.1982), argues that the availability of numerous alternative methods of designing a particular feature of a product or service defeats the functionality of any single method. This argument proceeds from an overly broad reading of Plawner. Although other formulas could be developed to serve the function of handicapping golfers, a particular method of serving that function may be superior to others. The feature at issue in Plawner, the color scheme of the Rubik's Cube, was held to be non-functional because the choice of colors was essentially arbitrary. If another aspect of the cube had been in issue, for instance, the internal design or the number of squares per side, a different result would probably have been reached. The manufacturer could not have asserted that these features were non-functional simply on the ground that other designs were conceivable because granting a monopoly over the best design of those features would have effectively excluded competition for the basic product--six-sided puzzles requiring that nine independent panels on each side be aligned in a single particular configuration. 16 When products or services of different providers are close substitutes for one another, the development of industry standards for certain aspects of the products or services will benefit consumers by facilitating comparability between and interchangeability among alternative products. The fact that any number of standards may be feasible and useful does not mean that the preferred standard is not functional, since use of that standard promotes comparability and interchangeability. The U.S.G.A. formula is like an industry standard: it allows the handicaps calculated by different providers to be compared with one another, much as the standard gauge of railroad track allows a locomotive of one company to run on the track of another. Allowing one provider to obtain exclusive rights in such a standard would enable it to exclude competitors desiring to provide the same product or service, particularly if the original provider, such as the U.S.G.A. in this case, starts with a virtual monopoly. To allow a monopoly over such a standard would defeat the policy of fostering competition that underlies the functionality doctrine. 17 The U.S.G.A. has raised no factual issues that would call into question a conclusion that the formula is functional. Accordingly, we hold that the district court's entry of summary judgment on this aspect of the U.S.G.A.'s claim was appropriate.