Opinion ID: 4521052
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Aesthetic Functionality and Distinctiveness

Text: To obtain trademark protection, a product’s trade dress or design must be nonfunctional and distinctive. See WalMart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 210 (2000); Talking Rain Beverage Co., Inc. v. S. Beach Beverage Co., 349 F.3d 601, 603 (9th Cir. 2003). “[T]he proper inquiry is not whether individual features of a product are functional or nondistinctive but whether the whole collection of features taken together are functional or nondistinctive.” Kendall-Jackson Winery, 150 F.3d at 1050. The district court correctly found Jack Daniel’s trade dress and bottle design are distinctive and aesthetically nonfunctional. Although whiskey companies use many of the individual elements employed by JDPI on their bottles, the Jack Daniel’s trade dress “is a combination [of] bottle and label elements,” including “the Jack Daniel’s and Old No. 7 word marks,” and the district court correctly found that these elements taken together are both nonfunctional and distinctive. See Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kinedyne Corp., 296 F.3d 778, 785 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that “‘an assurance that a particular entity made, sponsored, or endorsed a product,’ . . . if incorporated into the product’s design by virtue of arbitrary embellishment” is not functional (quoting Vuitton 8 VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES et Fils S.A. v. J. Young Enters., Inc., 644 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1981))). VIP also failed to rebut the presumption of nonfunctionality and distinctiveness of the Jack Daniel’s bottle design, which is covered by Trademark Registration No. 4,106,178. See Tie Tech, 296 F.3d at 783 (“[T]he plaintiff in an infringement action with a registered mark is given the prima facie or presumptive advantage on the issue of validity, thus shifting the burden of production to the defendant to prove otherwise.”). None of the evidence cited by VIP demonstrates that, “taken together,” the elements of the bottle design registration—including “an embossed signature design comprised of the word ‘JACK DANIEL’”—are functional or nondistinctive. The district court therefore correctly rejected VIP’s request for cancellation of the registered mark.