Document: 514 U.S. 159115 S.Ct. 1300131 L.Ed.2d 248 QUALITEX CO.v.JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO., INC. No. 93-1577. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 9, 1995. Decided March 28, Syllabus * Petitioner Qualitex Company has for years colored dry cleaning press pads it manufactures with a special shade green-gold. After respondent Jacobson Products (a rival) began to use similar on its own pads, registered color as trademark and added infringement count suit had previously filed challenging Jacobson's green-gold color. won in District Court, but Ninth Circuit set aside judgment claim because, view, Lanham Trademark Act 1946 does not permit registration alone trademark. Held: The permits that consists, purely simply, Pp. __. (a) That can meet basic legal requirements is demonstrated both by language Act, which describes universe things qualify broadest terms, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, underlying principles law, including mark "identify distinguish [the seller's] goods . from those manufactured or sold others indicate [their] source," ibid., be "functional," see, e.g., Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Inc., 456 844, 850, n. 10, 102 2182, 2186, 72 606. Court's findings (accepted here undisputed) show Qualitex's met these requirements. It acts symbol. Because customers identify Qualitex's, developed secondary meaning, id., at 851, 11, S.Ct., 2187, thereby identifies pads' source. And, serves no other function. (Although important some avoid noticeable stains, court found competitive need industry color, since colors are equally usable.) Accordingly, unless there reason convincingly militates against trademark, law protects (b) various reasons why should forbid trademark—that contrary holding (1) will produce uncertainty unresolvable disputes about what shades competitor may lawfully use; (2) unworkable light limited supply soon depleted competitors; (3) contradicted many older cases, decisions this interpreting pre-Lanham law; (4) unnecessary because firms already part rely "trade dress" protection—are unpersuasive. 13 F.3d 1297 (C.A.9 1994), reversed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Donald G. Mulack, Chicago, IL, petitioner. Lawrence Wallace, Washington, DC, U.S., amicus curiae leave Laurence D. Strick, Beverly Hills, CA, respondent. Justice BREYER 1 question case whether (Lanham Act), §§ 1051-1127 (1988 ed. Supp. V), We conclude that, sometimes, ordinary when so, rule prevents serving 2 before us grows out petitioner Company's (since 1950's) makes sells presses. In 1989 sell firms; 1991 Patent Office Registration 1,633,711 (Feb. 5, 1991). subsequently count, 1114(1), an unfair competition claim, 1125(a), lawsuit 3 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1457, WL 318798 (CD Cal.1991). But, Appeals favor Circuit's Qualitex, anyone else, register "color alone" 1297, 1300, 1302 (1994). 4 courts appeals have differed recognizes Compare NutraSweet Co. Stadt Corp., 917 F.2d 1024, 1028 (CA7 1990) (absolute prohibition protection alone), re Owens-Corning Fiberglas 774 1116, 1128 (CA Fed.1985) (allowing pink fiberglass insulation), Master Distributors, Pako 986 219, 224 (CA8 1993) (declining establish per se protecting trademark). Therefore, granted certiorari. 512 ----, 115 40, 129 935 now hold absolutely barring alone, we reverse Circuit. II 5 gives seller producer exclusive right "register" 1052 prevent his her competitors using 1114(1). Both would seem include within terms. says trademarks "includ[e] any word, name, symbol, device, combination thereof." 1127. Since human beings might "symbol" "device" almost anything all capable carrying language, read literally, restrictive. authorized particular shape (of Coca-Cola bottle), sound NBC's three chimes), even scent plumeria blossoms sewing thread). See, 696,147 (Apr. 12, 1960); Nos. 523,616 4, 1950) 916,522 (July 13, 1971); Clarke, 17 1238, 1240 (TTAB 1990). If shape, sound, fragrance act symbols why, one ask, do same? 6 A also satisfying more statutory definition requires person "us[e]" "inten[d] use" 7 "to goods, unique product, source if unknown." 8 True, product's unlike "fanciful," "arbitrary," "suggestive" words designs, automatically tell customer they refer brand. Abercrombie & Fitch Hunting World, 537 9-10 (CA2 1976) (Friendly, J.); see Two Pesos, Taco Cabana, 505 112 2753, 2757, 120 615 (1992). imaginary word "Suntost," "Suntost Marmalade," jar orange jam immediately signal brand product "source"; jam's so. over time, come treat packaging (say, context seems unusual, such firm's insulating material red head large industrial bolt) signifying goods—i.e. "indicate" their "source"—much way descriptive "Trim" nail clippers "Car-Freshner" deodorizer) origin. J. Wiss Sons W.E. Bassett Co., 59 C.C.P.A. 1269, 1271 (Pat.), 462 567, 569 (1972); Car-Freshner Corp. Turtle Wax, 268 F.Supp. 162, 164 (SDNY 1967). circumstance, (e.g., "Trim"), although inherently distinctive, "secondary meaning." See 606 (1982) ("secondary meaning" acquired "in minds public, primary significance feature rather than itself"). Again, meaning mark, under circumstances, 9 cannot find objectives obvious theoretical objection where attained therefore distinguishes (and thus indicates "source"). principle, preventing copying source-identifying "reduce[s] customer's costs shopping making purchasing decisions," McCarthy, McCarthy Trademarks Unfair Competition 2.01[2], p. 2-3 (3d 1994) (hereinafter McCarthy), quickly easily assures potential item—the item —is made same similarly marked items he she liked (or disliked) past. At helps assure imitating competitor) reap financial, reputation-related rewards associated desirable product. "encourage[s] production quality products," simultaneously discourages who hope inferior products capitalizing consumer's inability evaluate offered sale. L. Altman, Callmann Competition, Monopolies 17.03 (4th 1983); Landes Posner, Economics Law, 78 T.M. Rep. 267, 271-272 (1988); Park 'N Fly, Dollar 469 189, 198, 105 658, 663, 83 582 (1985); S.Rep. 100-515, (1988) U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, 1988, pp. 5577, 5580. source-distinguishing ability mark—not ontological status fragrance, sign—that serve purposes. Law: An Economic Perspective, 30 J.Law Econ. 265, 290 (1987). reason, difficult find, objectives, disqualify mark. 10 Neither principled "functionality" doctrine law. functionality seeks promote reputation, instead inhibiting legitimate allowing control useful feature. province patent encourage invention granting inventors monopoly new designs functions 35 154, 173, after free innovation. functional features could used trademarks, however, obtained without regard patents extended forever (because renewed perpetuity). Kellogg National Biscuit 305 111, 119-120, 109, 113-114, L.Ed. 73 (1938) (Brandeis, supra, 863, 2193 (White, concurring result) ("A characteristic 'an ingredient commercial success product,' and, expiration patent, property originator itself") (citation omitted). Functionality require, take example, illumination-enhancing patented bulb manufacturer, manufacturer doing expired, impede competition—not reputation original maker, frustrating competitors' efforts equivalent bulb. 113-114 (trademark extend "pillow" shredded wheat biscuit expired). This consequently explained "[i]n general functional," "if essential purpose article affects cost article," is, put significant non-reputation-related disadvantage. 10. Although sometimes plays role (unrelated identification) desirable, not. latter fact—the fact affect quality—indicates create absolute bar Owens-Corning, F.2d, 1123 (pink insulation wall "performs nontrademark function"). 11 seem, then, least symbol source, Dept. Commerce, Office, Manual Examining Procedure 1202.04(e), 1202-13 (2d May, PTO Manual) (approving "has become distinctive applicant's commerce," provided "there [no] remain available industry" "functional"); 3.01[1], 7.26 ("requirements qualification trademark" "symbol," "use[d] mark," seller's others," "functional"). Indeed, case, entered Circuit) pad Having (for identified Qualitex's), "no usable." U.S.P.Q.2d, 1460, 318798.) protect pads. III 12 Respondent four shall explain, turn, we, ultimately, them First, use. lighting (morning sun, twilight mist) perceptions protected suffer "shade confusion" try decide does, not, confuse infringe adds problem "more difficult" "far different from" "determination similarity symbols." Brief 22. 14 believe, respect, special. Courts traditionally quite questions two phrases sufficiently similar, context, buyers. They compare, "Bonamine" "Dramamine" (motion-sickness remedies); "Huggies" "Dougies" (diapers); "Cheracol" "Syrocol" (cough syrup); "Cyclone" "Tornado" (wire fences); "Mattres" "1-800-Mattres" (mattress franchisor telephone numbers). G.D. Searle Chas. Pfizer 265 385, 389 1959); Kimberly-Clark H. Douglas Enterprises, Ltd., 1144, 1146-1147 Fed.1985); Upjohn Schwartz, 246 254, 262 1957); Hancock American Steel Wire 40 New Jersey, 931, 203 737, 740-741 (1953); Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Page, 880 675, 678 1989). Legal standards exist guide comparisons. 15.08; 11.24-11.25 ("[S]trong" marks, greater receive broader "weak" marks). apply replicating, necessary, conditions normally sold. Ebert, Protection Color: Do By Numbers!, 84 T.M.Rep. 379, 405 done so cases consists plus design, i.e., gold stripe (around sewer pipe), yellow strand wire rope, "brilliant yellow" band (on ampules). Youngstown Sheet Tube Tallman Conduit 149 U.S.P.Q. 656, 657 1966); Amsted Industries, West Coast Rope Rigging 1755, 1760 1987); Hodes-Lange 167 255, 256 1970). Second, argues, others, supply. 1028; Campbell Soup Armour 175 795, 798 (CA3 1949). claims appropriate each then tries same, depleted. Put strongest form, argument concede "[h]undreds pigments thousands mixing." Cheskin, Colors: What Can For You 47 (1947). add only usable. time discards say, appeal, usable, lest risk infringing shade, left handful possible colors. one, few, producers "deplete" usable point competitor's suitable 16 unpersuasive, largely relies occasional justify blanket prohibition. When alternative likely others. 1121 insulation). Moreover, so—if depletion" scarcity" arise—the anticompetitive consequences posits, minimizing argument's practical force. doctrine, said, forbids disadvantage "essential article" "affects [its] quality." recognition reputation) otherwise impose, namely reasonably replicate features. written copy medical pill kind medication type blood medicine) addition 853, 858, 20, 2188, 2190, 20 ("[S]ome patients commingle medications container differentiate another"); Ginsburg, Goldberg, A. Greenbaum, Law 194-195 (1991) (noting drug "have public health policy" regarding generic substitution "than law"). federal careful reasoned manner, sensitivity effect competition. comment merits specific note lower permitted green farm machinery wanted equipment match) barred black outboard boat motors attributes decreasing apparent size motor ensuring compatibility colors). Deere Farmhand, 560 85, 98 (SD Iowa 1982), aff'd, 721 253 Brunswick British Seagull 1527, 1532 Fed.1994), cert. pending, 94-1075; Nor-Am Chemical O.M. Scott 1316, 1320, 1987 13742 (ED Pa.1987) (blue fertilizer held indicated presence nitrogen). Restatement (Third) design's "aesthetic value" lies "confe[r] benefit practically duplicated designs," design "functional." 17, Comment c, 175-176 (1995). "ultimate test aesthetic functionality," explains, "is rights significantly hinder competition." Id., 176. 18 upshot function—whether heart digestive medicine satisfy "noble instinct giving touch beauty common necessary things," G.K. Chesterton, Simplicity Tolstoy 61 (1912)—courts examine group) interfere (nontrademark-related) through actual ingredient. examination discourage creating aesthetically pleasing open same. W.T. Rogers Keene, 778 334, 343 1985) (Posner, J.). ordinarily, hypothetical argument, when, if, circumstances threaten depletion." 19 Third, points cases—including cases—in support position. 1878, described common-law broadly "consist figure, letter, adopted merchant order designate another." McLean Fleming, 96 245, 24 828. Yet, Acts 1881 1905, Stat. 502, 33 724, retained definition, questioned "[w]hether mere constitute valid trade-mark," Leschen Broderick Bascom 201 166, 171, 26 425, 426, 50 710 (1906), suggested "product coloring matter make it." Koke America, 254 143, 147, 41 113, 114, 65 189 (1920). Even though statements amounted dicta, interpreted forbidding alone. 798, 9; Life Savers Curtiss Candy 182 (quoting ). These existed b efore 1946, Congress enacted Act. changed liberalized "dispense technical prohibitions," 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., (1946), most notably, permitting "U-Build-It" model airplanes) marks clear (with certain explicit exceptions relevant here), "nothing applicant commerce." 1052(f) ed., V). description), gained Its logic appear well. 1985, Federal considered Act's changes related was consistent 22 "jurisprudence accordance principle being becoming [the] commerce, trademark." 1120. 23 1988 amended revising portions definitional unchanged relevant. 134, 3946, amendments following background: decided Owens-Corning; policy (which still maintains) 1202.04(e) (at 1200-12 January 1986 edition May 1993 edition); Commission report, recommended "the terms 'symbol, device' deleted narrowed preclude smell, configuration Association Review Report Recommendations USTA President Board Directors, 77 375, 421 (1987) Commission); 133 Cong.Rec. 32812 (statement Sen. DeConcini) ("The bill I am introducing today based Commission's report recommendations"). background strongly suggests "any device," statute, Senate accompanying revision explicitly referred understanding, saying "revised intentionally retains 'symbol colors, shapes, sounds configurations function trademarks." 44 5607. (In addition, statute providing "[n]o distinguished refused account nature" (except specified here). V)). history undercuts authority precedent relies. Much pre-1985 rested opinions were directly holdings cases. believe 1985 embodied crucial (under circumstances). minimum, reevaluate preexisting forbidden Finally, re-enacted "word, device" did embraced understanding. 25 Fourth, argues firm circle letter upon protection, 43(a) copies causes consumer confusion overall appearance competing packaging, 1125(a) first begs question. One understand place bolt distance); instances, want pure simple, design. second portion convincing. holder ways 1124 (ability importation confusingly goods); 1072 (constructive notice ownership); 1065 (incontestible status); 1057(b) (prima facie evidence validity ownership). Thus, provide trade dress protection. IV determined arguments (and, undisputed meets requirements), erred reasons, 27 Reversed. syllabus constitutes been prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499.

Category: 7