Opinion ID: 775415
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trade Dress Background and the Effect of Samara Brothers

Text: 54 Herman Miller brings its trade dress claims under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits any person from using any false designation of origin that is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive . . . as to the origin . . . of his or her goods . . . . 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(1)(A). 2 Trade dress refers to the image and overall appearance of a product. Allied Mktg. Group, Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 812 (5th Cir. 1989). It embodies that arrangement of identifying characteristics or decorations connected with a product, whether by packaging or otherwise, intended to make the source of the product distinguishable from another and to promote its sale. Ferrari S.P.A. Esercizio v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235, 1239 (6th Cir. 1991) (citation and internal quotations omitted). 55 To prove a claim of trade dress infringement under §43(a) of the Lanham Act, Herman Miller must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that its trade dress in the Eames lounge chair and ottoman is protectable; (2) that there is a likelihood of confusion between Herman Miller's lounge chair and ottoman and that of Palazzetti; and (3) that the appropriated features of the lounge chair and ottoman are primarily nonfunctional. See ibid. The district court granted summary judgment to Palazzetti on the basis that Herman Miller's trade dress in the Eames lounge chair and ottoman is not protectable. 3 56 Since the district court issued its decision in this case, the protectability analysis in a trade dress claim based on product design has changed considerably. At the time of the district court's decision, trade dress was protectable if it was proven either to be inherently distinctive or to have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. See Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 776. The district court determined that Herman Miller's Eames lounge chair and ottoman neither were inherently distinctive nor had acquired secondary meaning. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment to Palazzetti on Herman Miller's trade dress claim. 57 In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, 529 U.S. 205, 216 (2000), the Supreme Court held that in an action for infringement of unregistered trade dress under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a product's design is distinctive, and therefore protectable, only upon a showing of secondary meaning. (emphases added). This decision resolved a circuit split in which the circuits differed as to which law to apply to determine whether trade dress was inherently distinctive. Some courts applied different tests depending on whether the trade dress was for the package containing the product or for the product itself. Part of this confusion was a result of the fact that it was only in 1992 that the Supreme Court held that trade dress, like a trademark, could be inherently distinctive. See Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 773. 58 In Samara Brothers, the Supreme Court noted several reasons why the inherently distinctive test should not be applied in trade dress cases based on product design. The Court noted the fact that product design almost invariably serves purposes other than source identification, such as making products more useful or appealing. 529 U.S. at 213. The Court also stated that application of the inherently distinctive test in product design cases could deprive consumers of the benefits of competition with regard to the utilitarian and esthetic purposes that product design ordinarily serves . . . . Ibid. 59 The Court then differentiated Samara Brothers from Two Pesos. Samara Brothers concerned a claim brought by a children's clothing designer and manufacturer alleging that Wal-Mart was selling knockoff copies of the designer's clothes, namely a line of spring/summer one-piece seersucker outfits decorated with appliques of hearts, flowers, fruits, and the like. 529 U.S. at 207, 208. In Two Pesos, the Court held that the trade dress of a chain of Mexican restaurants, which the plaintiff described as a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with antiques, bright colors, paintings and murals, id. at 214-15 (quoting Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 765), could be protected under § 43(a) without a showing of secondary meaning. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 215 (citing Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 776). The Samara Brothers Court differentiated Two Pesos on the basis that the trade dress at issue, the decor of a restaurant, seems to us not to constitute product design. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 215. The Court stated that it was either product packaging--which, . . . normally is taken by the consumer to indicate origin or some tertium quid that is akin to product packaging and has no bearing on the present case. Ibid. 60 After Samara Brothers, trade dress claims based on product packaging can be proven upon a showing of either inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning, but trade dress claims based on product design can be proven only upon a showing of secondary meaning. The Court noted that this distinction could produce some hard cases at the margin. Ibid. The Court cited one example: 61 a classic glass Coca-Cola bottle, for instance, may constitute packaging for those customers who drink the Coke and then discard the bottle, but may constitute the product itself for those consumers who are bottle collectors, or part of the product itself for those consumers who buy Coke in the classic glass bottle, rather than a can, because they think it more stylish to drink from the former. 62 Ibid. To the extent that difficult cases exist, the Court stated that courts should err on the side of caution and classify ambiguous trade dress as product design, thereby requiring secondary meaning. Ibid. 63 This is not a hard case, however. Herman Miller's trade dress claims regarding the Eames lounge chair and ottoman are based on product design and cannot be confused with product packaging. Therefore, on appeal we must analyze Herman Miller's trade dress claims solely to determine if Herman Miller can demonstrate that its Eames lounge chair and ottoman have acquired sufficient secondary meaning in the marketplace that they have become associated in the public's mind with Herman Miller. The district court's inherently distinctive analysis is no longer relevant to this case in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Samara Brothers. 64