Document: 532 U.S. 23121 S.Ct. 1255149 L.Ed.2d 164 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC., PETITIONERv.MARKETING DISPLAYS, INC. No. 99-1571. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued November 29, 2000 Decided March 20, 2001 Syllabus Respondent, Marketing Displays, Inc. (MDI), holds now-expired utility patents for a "dual-spring design" mechanism keeps temporary road and outdoor signs upright adverse wind conditions. MDI claims its sign stands were recognizable buyers users because patented design was visible near stand's base. After expired petitioner TrafFix Devices, Inc., began marketing with dual-spring copied from MDI's design, brought suit under Trademark Act 1964 for, inter alia, trade dress infringement. The District granted TrafFix's motion summary judgment, holding no reasonable trier fact could determine had established secondary meaning alleged dress, i.e., consumers did not associate design's look MDI; and, as an independent reason, there protection it functional. Sixth Circuit reversed. Among things, suggested committed legal error by looking only when evaluating competitor find some way hide otherwise set apart MDI's; explained, relying on Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 159, 165, exclusive use feature must put competitors at significant non-reputation-related disadvantage denied functionality grounds; noted split among Circuits issue whether patent forecloses possibility product's design. Held: Because functional which protection, claim barred. Pp. 4-11. (a) Trade can protected federal law, but person asserting such infringement action prove matter sought functional, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(3). subsist recognition many instances prohibition against copying goods products. An has vital significance resolving claim, strong evidence features therein claimed central advance here essential now seeks protect. However, not, cannot, carry burden overcoming evidentiary inference based disclosure patents. springs necessary device's operation, they would have been covered even though different embodiment revealed those patents, see Sarkisian Winn-Proof Corp., 697 F.2d 1313. rationale rule patent's constitutes well illustrated this case. serves important purpose keeping heavy conditions, statements applications indicate does so unique useful manner cost advantage over alternative designs. 4-8. (b) In reversing judgment MDI, gave insufficient weight importance their significance, establishing functionality. likely caused misinterpretation principles respects. " 'In general terms product functional,' cannot serve trademark, 'if article if affects quality article.' Qualitex, supra, 165 (quoting Inwood Laboratories, Ives 456 844, 850, n. 10). expanded meaning, observing one "the [which] disadvantage," language mean competitive necessity test Where formulation need proceed further consider necessity. allowed inherently distinctive assumption Two Pesos, Taco Cabana, 505 763, 774. Here, however, beyond serving informing provides resist wind's force. Functionality having established, acquired considered. Nor speculate about possibilities. Finally, resolve question Patent Clause Constitution, own force, prohibits holder claiming protection. 8-11. 200 F.3d 929, reversed remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT Kennedy, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion Justice Kennedy 1 Temporary warnings like "Road Work Ahead" "Left Shoulder Closed" withstand gusts wind. inventor named Robert obtained two built upon (the design) keep these despite respondent successful business manufacture sale incorporating feature. (it says) base sign. 2 litigation followed after competitor, sold spring looked MDI's. products alike were. When started business, sent abroad reverse engineered, say copied. Complicating matters, marketed name similar used "WindMaster," while TrafFix, new "WindBuster." 3 (Lanham Act), 60 Stat. 427, amended, 1051 et seq., trademark (based names), unfair competition. counterclaimed antitrust theories. Eastern Michigan considered cross-motions prevailed confusing similarity names held liable counterclaim; rulings, affirmed Appeals, us. 4 * We concerned question. ruled claim. 971 F. Supp. 262 (ED Mich. 1997). determining element id., 265, "no meaning" 269. words, MDI. As second, reason grant favor determined On irrelevant event. ruling aspect precedent indicated nonfunctional, show (a since adopted Congress, 1125(a)(3) (1994 ed., V)), then went arguments Finding none contentions persuasive, concluded "proffered sufficient enable vertical non-functional." Id., 276. Summary entered claims. 5 Appeals ruling. 929 (1999). erred failed genuine material regarding 938, prevail event configuration, 940. dress. Basic reasoning Appeals' observation took "little imagination conceive hidden tri quad-spring might avoid infringing [MDI's] dress." Ibid. explained "[i]f another chooses will It sufficient, according allowing particular guise "hinde[r] competition somewhat." Rather, "[e]xclusive 'put disadvantage' grounds." (1995)). criticism Court's question, note Courts various existence patentee's F.3d, 939. Compare Sunbeam Products, West Bend 123 246 (CA5 1997) (holding foreclosed), Thomas & Betts Corp. Panduit 138 277 (CA7 1998) (same), Midwest Industries, Karavan Trailers, 175 1356 (CA Fed 1999) Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Duracraft 58 1498, 1500 (CA10 1995) ("Where configuration inventive component invention . receive protection"). To conflict, we certiorari. 530 1260 (2000). II 6 law. packaging acquire distinctiveness identify manufacturer source; package acquires assuming requisites met, cause confusion origin, sponsorship, approval goods. respects exists promote just last Term, Wal-Mart Stores, Samara Brothers, 529 205 (2000), provision Lanham who injured uses "any word, term name, symbol, device, combination thereof 7 his her goods." 1125(a)(1)(A). Congress confirmed statutory amending recognize concept. Title V) provides: "In civil chapter registered principal register, asserts proving functional." proof gives force well-established 164-165; 775 (1992). And Wal-Mart, careful caution misuse over-extension "product almost invariably purposes than source identification." 8 213. 9 general, unless intellectual property right copyright protects item, copying. always discouraged disfavored laws preserve our economy. Bonito Boats, Thunder Craft 489 141, 160 (1989). Allowing copy salutary effects instances. "Reverse engineering chemical mechanical articles public domain often leads advances technology." 10 case effect A prior patent, conclude, If previous adds great presumption deemed until proved party seeking establish showing instance merely ornamental, incidental, arbitrary device. 11 us, patents) design; bars 12 dual shown (at either end frame rectangular full side base) close together (in designed hold corners). recognized, makes little difference. point operation very different-looking device fall within position earlier litigation. late 1970's, engaged long-running battle company known Winn-Proof. Although precise cover "spaced apart," 3,646,696, col. 4; 3,662,482, 4, (with much here) found infringe Oregon, Ninth judgment. 1313 (1983). traffic stand together) appear, then, literal (which called apart" springs), doctrine equivalents, allows finding accused 1321-1322; generally Warner-Jenkinson Hilton Davis Chemical 520 17 (1997). light past ruling-a procured insistence-it 13 conditions; manner. specification recites, art "devices, practice, topple wind." 1. toppling winds. Using rather single achieves operational advantages. For example, specifications "use pair opposed support structure prevents canting twisting around axis," that, prevented, "may damage result tipping device." 3. course prosecution, said "[t]he connections connection 14 forms part combination" "forc[es] tip along longitudinal axis elongated ground-engaging members." App. 218. well; acknowledged "could three unnecessarily increase 217. These procuring demonstrate assert representations mistaken inaccurate, III noted, nonfunctionality features. meet burden. Discussing trademarks, '[i]n terms, U.S., (1982)). Expanding phrase, observed "exclusive disadvantage." 165. instant seemed interpret "whether necessity." See also Vornado, 1507 ("Functionality, contrast, defined both circuit, more recently Court, need"). 16 incorrect comprehensive definition. Inwood, decision purport displace traditional rule. Instead, quoted forth. proper inquire into "significant disadvantage" cases aesthetic functionality, involved Qualitex. indication green-gold color laundry press pad bearing quality. certain distinctive. outset explicit analytic (decorations evoke Mexican theme restaurant) 767, 6. bar case, (assuming so), 18 There need, furthermore, engage, speculation possibilities, using four same purpose. means explore juxtapositions used. flourish product; works. Other designs attempted. 19 unnecessary springs, box framework them, Appeals. assures user work. assured seeing operative itself market need. cross-purposes objectives, something paradox, require conceal item seeks. 20 where protect arbitrary, ornamental aspects claims, curves legs pattern painted obtain. perhaps do patent. inquiry features, asserted inclusion aided going examining prosecution history invention. No here, however. essence alone. consists simply legs, base, upright, pointed nothing components assembled. exist reward manufacturers innovation creating device; law period exclusivity. Act, investment encourage seller. viewing possessing exclude identical adopt it. gain produce itself. Whether all, appearance "essential article" "affects article." 10. 21 amici argue Art. I, 8, cl. Brief Petitioner 33-36; Amicus Curiae 3; Malla Pollack 2. If, arises becomes practical equivalent time enough matter. reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 22 ordered.

Category: 7