Opinion ID: 795959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trade Dress Claim

Text: 18 Trademarks and trade dress are separate and distinct causes of action under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1050 et seq. Gibson Guitar, 423 F.3d at 547. Trade dress has been described by the Supreme Court as the `design or packaging of a product' which has acquired a `secondary meaning' sufficient `to identify the product with its manufacturer or source.' Id. (quoting TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 28, 121 S.Ct. 1255, 149 L.Ed.2d 164 (2001)). 19 Trade dress refers to the image and overall appearance of a product. It embodies that arrangement of identifying characteristics or decorations connected with a product, whether by packaging or otherwise, [that] make[s] the source of the product distinguishable from another and . . . promote[s] its sale. Trade dress involves the total image of a product and may include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, or even particular sales techniques. 20 Id. at 547 n. 10 (internal citation omitted). 21 A party seeking to recover for trade dress infringement must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the trade dress is not functional; (2) the trade dress is distinctive in the marketplace and has acquired secondary meaning, thereby indicating the source of the goods; and (3) the trade dress of the accused product is confusingly similar. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 210, 120 S.Ct. 1339, 146 L.Ed.2d 182 (2000). Lanard is silent on the issue of whether the trade dress of its toys is confusingly similar to the trade dress asserted by General Motors and AM General. This silence is taken as a concession of this element of trade dress infringement. We must therefore review de novo whether there was a material issue of fact as to each of the remaining two elements. The district court held that Lanard's CORPS! ATK vehicle violated the Hummer/Humvee trade dress as a matter of law.
22 Before addressing the application of the trade dress infringement elements, we must first address Lanard's challenge to both the ownership of the Hummer and Humvee trade dress and what that trade dress is comprised of. Lanard's argument can be summed up in two statements. First, neither the district court, AM General, nor General Motors listed the appropriate elements constituting the protected trade dress. Second, the district court inappropriately lumped together the trade dress of the civilian Hummer vehicle (owned by General Motors) with the military Humvee vehicle (owned by AM General), thereby prejudicing many of Lanard's arguments against trade dress infringement. 23 [I]t will not do to solely identify in litigation a combination as `the trade dress.' Rather, the discrete elements which make up that combination should be separated out and identified in a list. McCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS § 8:3 (4th ed.2001). General Motors argues that the trade dress was properly identified as the exterior appearance and styling of the vehicles in question. However, 24 focus on the overall look of a product does not permit a plaintiff to dispense with an articulation of the specific elements which comprise its distinct dress. Without such a precise expression of the character and scope of the claimed trade dress, litigation will be difficult, as courts will be unable to evaluate how unique and unexpected the design elements are in the relevant market. 25 Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 113 F.3d 373, 381 (2d Cir.1997). General Motors argues that it met that burden in its summary judgment brief when it identified the trade dress elements 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. While the district court did not repeat this list as the specific trade dress which Lanard infringed upon, we hold this is sufficient to fulfill the discrete elements requirement of a trade dress claim. 26 Lanard's only dispute that this description by General Motors is not an acceptable list of discrete elements involves the etc. at the end of the description. In requiring a list of discrete elements, we are looking to avoid vague and indeterminate references to the `overall appearance' or `look' of plaintiff's packaging. McCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS § 8:3. In the end, the question is whether or not the court and the parties coherently define exactly what the trade dress consists of and determine whether that trade dress is valid and if what the accused is doing is an infringement. Id. Based on the list of elements presented by General Motors, it can be understood exactly what they are looking to protect. The etc. marking must be ignored in such a listing as it does not define any further element to be included in the trade dress. See WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. & E.B. WHITE, THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE 46 (4th ed. 2001) (In formal writing, etc. is a misfit.). Because the listing is not vague and provides exact details as to what General Motors seeks to protect, we find the elements listed by General Motors to be sufficient to define exactly what constitutes the Hummer/ Humvee trade dress. 27 Lanard's second argument is that the district court treated the trade dress claims from AM General and General Motors as the same. The district court referred in its summary judgment order to the Hummer/Humvee Trade Dress as the trade dress on which the ATK vehicle infringed. The two plaintiffs also combined the trade dress claims of the Hummer and the Humvee throughout their summary judgment brief and subsequent reply brief. However, the design elements of each are not identical, as admitted to by an AM General representative: The HUMVEE contains certain design elements not present on the Hummer, including, but not limited to: `X'—shaped cross bars on the doors, a slant back with no windows, mounted weapons or a weapons turret, and a blackout headlight in the left front hood recess. While these distinctions appear to be significant changes to the exterior appearance and styling, they do not change the basic trade dress as defined by the discrete elements listed above. Both the military Humvee and the civilian Hummer share common appearance elements which constitute a trade dress (specifically, the grille, slanted and raised hood, split windshield, rectangular doors, and squared edges). The elements listed which were not a part of the civilian Hummer's design are also not listed in the discrete elements which make up the trade dress as alleged by General Motors/AM General. Therefore, the district court's combining of the Hummer and Humvee trade dresses into one trade dress comprising the common elements between those vehicles is permissible.
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.
36 Finally, Lanard argues that an issue of material fact remains as to whether the allegedly protected trade dress has acquired secondary meaning. Again, General Motors bears the burden of proof on the issue of secondary meaning. Wal-Mart Stores, 529 U.S. at 210, 120 S.Ct. 1339. To demonstrate secondary meaning, the evidence must show that in the minds of the public, the primary significance of the trade dress is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself. Inwood Labs., 456 U.S. at 851, 102 S.Ct. 2182 n. 11. This Court applies a seven-factor test to determine whether secondary meaning exists in a trade dress: (1) direct consumer testimony, (2) consumer surveys, (3) exclusivity, length, and manner of use, (4) amount and manner of advertising, (5) amount of sales and number of customers, (6) established place in the market, and (7) proof of intentional copying. Marketing Displays, Inc. v. TrafFix Devices, Inc., 200 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir.1999), rev'd on other grounds, TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 121 S.Ct. 1255, 149 L.Ed.2d 164 (2001). 37 Lanard first argues that the district court erred in not applying the seven-factor test or referring to any of the factors in either its decision or at the summary judgment hearing. Additionally, the district court appears to have incorrectly shifted the burden on this issue by stating that Lanard's defense of `secondary meaning' is dismissed. Secondary meaning is an element of trade dress infringement which must be proven by the plaintiffs, not the defendants. Wal-Mart Stores, 529 U.S. at 210, 120 S.Ct. 1339. On this issue, the district court erred in ruling against such a defense because Lanard is not required to present evidence on secondary meaning. That burden falls to General Motors. However, as this is de novo review, we must continue to apply the seven-factor test in order to determine if General Motors has sufficiently proven that the trade dress has acquired secondary meaning. 38 In order to prove secondary meaning, General Motors relies on a number of sources. First, it draws this Court's attention to a General Motors business report which states that Hummer has 96% brand recognition. The report, dated December 1, 1999, states that 96% of the 228 respondents were able to correctly identify a picture of the Hummer as in fact being a Hummer. 3 This survey appears to be powerful evidence in that it essentially forced consumers to look at the exterior appearance and styling and to identify the source of that product. General Motors also relies on a survey from 2002, conducted in anticipation of this litigation. This Marylander survey concluded that Hummer's trade dress had secondary meaning to almost 77% of the respondents, but its conclusion is slightly misleading. The 77% represents the number of people who, when they were showed pictures of Hummer vehicles, stated that a specific make comes to mind, including: Hummer (54%), Humvee (14%), General Motors (2%), Hoomer (1 %), Hummer truck (1 %), Military Hummer (1 %), and those who could not name the make but knew they were all from one company (15%). 4 Nevertheless, knowledge that a product comes from a single source, even without naming that source, is sufficient to establish secondary meaning. See 15 U.S.C. § 1157. 39 Lanard argues that General Motors's survey evidence is not enough to establish secondary meaning. First of all, it argues that secondary meaning must be proven before the first allegedly infringing use of the trade dress. See McCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS § 15:4; Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc., 871 F.2d 590, 596 (6th Cir.1989) (Secondary meaning must be established prior to other's first use of a similar [design].). Survey evidence from either 1999 or 2002 is therefore not relevant given that Lanard developed the MUDSLINGER in 1992 and the allegedly infringing ATK in 1997. General Motors retorts that such a blanket rule would invalidate all surveys of trade dress conducted in anticipation of litigation. 40 This Court has historically favored the use of consumer surveys as proof of secondary meaning. See Tumblebus, Inc. v. Cranmer, 399 F.3d 754, 761 n. 9 (6th Cir.2005); see also Black & Decker, Inc. v. Pro-Tech Power Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 834 (E.D.Va.1998) (holding that a 1998 survey showing 85% brand recognition was strong enough to establish secondary meaning in 1992). However, the question remains whether we should ignore all survey evidence conducted post-infringement or accept the evidence with the understanding that the survey does not reflect a pre-infringement world. A court may easily take into consideration the strength of recognition at the time of the survey in light of the amount of time passed between that date and the date of infringement. We have previously taken the latter course in an unpublished decision. Ashland Oil v. Olymco, 1995 WL 499466, at -5, 1995 U.S.App. LEXIS 24652 (6th Cir. August 21, 1995). This seems to be the appropriate choice, given the relatively unlikely scenario that a company has conducted a pre-infringement survey and this Court's strong support for survey evidence in evaluating secondary meaning. In light of the strong statistical evidence (96% recognition in 1999 and 77% recognition in 2002), we hold that General Motors's survey evidence was sufficient to support secondary meaning. See Ashland Oil, 1995 WL 499466, at 1995 U.S.App. LEXIS 24652 at -13 (holding that 50% is generally acceptable for secondary meaning and 38% is marginal recognition). 41 Finally, there is a dispute between the parties over whether the intentional copying of a trade dress constitutes inherent secondary meaning in that trade dress. The Supreme Court has stated that product-design trade dress can never be inherently distinctive. Wal-Mart Stores, 529 U.S. at 214, 120 S.Ct. 1339. Therefore, secondary meaning for any product design trade dress can not be inherent through evidence of copying. While Lanard believes the Wal-Mart court completely eliminated consideration of intentional copying in product design cases, that is not the case. Intentional copying may be used to show secondary meaning as the seventh factor in this Court's seven-factor test, but it is only one of many considerations in that test and does not alone establish secondary meaning. Therefore, Lanard's intentional copying of the Humvee trade dress is relevant, but not determinative, to the issue of secondary meaning. 42 We have now discussed two factors—consumer surveys and proof of intentional copying—of the seven-factor test required by TrafFix Devices. 200 F.3d at 937. Because we must focus on secondary meaning developed before infringement, General Motors has very little evidence as to the remaining five factors. Direct consumer testimony is unavailable pre-1992. There was little exclusivity, length, and manner of use of the trade dress pre-1992. There was no advertising, with the exception of the presence of the Humvee in the Gulf War. Finally, there was no sales and no established place in the market for the vehicles at that time. However, General Motors presents exceptionally strong survey evidence of recognition of its trade dress along with the intentional copying by Lanard. Lanard was unsuccessful in its attempt to discredit the proof offered by General Motors. Given this strong evidence by General Motors and Lanard's inability to present evidence to the contrary on any of the seven factors, we hold that summary judgment was appropriate as to the issue of secondary meaning. 43 General Motors therefore has established that there are no material issues of fact as to any of the three elements of trade dress infringement. Therefore, summary judgment was appropriate as to this issue.