The Intricate World of Trade Dress Protection: Balancing Brand Identity and Functional Design

In the vast landscape of intellectual property law, trade dress protection stands out as a fascinating and complex area that bridges the gap between trademark law and industrial design. This unique form of legal protection safeguards the visual appearance of a product or its packaging, provided that these elements serve to identify the source of the product to consumers. However, the path to securing trade dress protection is far from straightforward, as recent court decisions have demonstrated.

Understanding Trade Dress

Before delving into the intricacies of recent legal rulings, it's crucial to understand what exactly constitutes trade dress. Unlike traditional trademarks, which typically protect words, phrases, or logos, trade dress encompasses the total image and overall appearance of a product or service. This can include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, and even particular sales techniques.

The primary purpose of trade dress protection is to prevent consumer confusion and protect the goodwill that companies have built up in their product designs. However, this protection must be balanced against the need to maintain fair competition in the marketplace and prevent the monopolization of useful product features.

Key Elements of Trade Dress Protection

To qualify for trade dress protection, a product's design or packaging must meet several criteria:

Distinctiveness: The trade dress must be either inherently distinctive or have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning in the marketplace.
Non-functionality: The protected elements must not be essential to the use or purpose of the product, or affect its cost or quality.
Likelihood of confusion: There must be a potential for consumers to be confused about the source of the product if another company were to use a similar trade dress.

Recent Court Decisions: A Mixed Bag

Recent years have seen a flurry of court decisions regarding trade dress protection, with outcomes varying widely depending on the specific circumstances of each case. Let's examine some notable examples that illustrate the complex nature of trade dress law.

Successful Trade Dress Claims

Automobile Designs: In a landmark case, Ferrari successfully defended the trade dress of its iconic Daytona Spyder and Testarossa models. The court found that the distinctive exterior design features of these vehicles had acquired secondary meaning and were non-functional, thus deserving protection.
Beverage Packaging: The maker of a premium vodka brand won protection for its bottle design, which included a distinctive shape and frosted glass texture. The court determined that these elements were not functional and had come to signify the source of the product to consumers.
Furniture Design: Herman Miller, the manufacturer of the famous Eames chair, successfully defended its trade dress rights against a competitor. The court upheld a jury verdict finding that the chair's distinctive appearance was protectable trade dress.
Apparel Features: Levi Strauss & Co. secured protection for the red tab on the back pocket of its jeans, with the court recognizing that this small but distinctive feature had acquired secondary meaning in identifying the source of the jeans.

Denied Trade Dress Claims

Kitchen Appliances: A manufacturer of food processors was denied trade dress protection for the overall look of its product. The court found that many of the design elements were functional and that the combination of features had not acquired secondary meaning.
Toy Designs: Several toy manufacturers have failed in their attempts to secure trade dress protection for their products. Courts have often found that the designs of action figures or play sets are either functional or lack the requisite distinctiveness.
Medical Devices: Trade dress claims for the appearance of various medical devices have been rejected, with courts typically finding that the designs are primarily functional and driven by the devices' intended use rather than source identification.
Automotive Parts: Attempts to protect the design of certain automotive parts, such as exhaust pipes or brake rotors, have been unsuccessful due to the functional nature of these components.

The Functionality Doctrine: A Key Hurdle

One of the most significant challenges in securing trade dress protection is overcoming the functionality doctrine. This legal principle states that functional product features cannot be protected as trade dress, as doing so would essentially grant a monopoly on useful product characteristics and stifle competition.

Courts have grappled with defining functionality, often distinguishing between "utilitarian functionality" and "aesthetic functionality":

Utilitarian Functionality: This refers to features that are essential to the use or purpose of the article or affect its cost or quality. For example, the shape of a tire is utilitarian functional because it affects the tire's performance.
Aesthetic Functionality: This more controversial doctrine suggests that purely ornamental features can be functional if they confer a significant benefit that cannot practically be duplicated by the use of alternative designs.

Recent cases have shown that courts are increasingly scrutinizing claims of trade dress protection through the lens of functionality. For instance, the distinctive red soles of Christian Louboutin shoes were initially denied protection on the grounds of aesthetic functionality, although this decision was later partially reversed to protect the red sole when contrasted with a different upper color.

The Role of Secondary Meaning

For product designs that are not inherently distinctive, proving secondary meaning becomes crucial. Secondary meaning occurs when, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.

Establishing secondary meaning can be challenging and often requires substantial evidence, such as:

Consumer surveys demonstrating association of the design with a single source
Extensive advertising and promotion of the design
Sales success of the product
Unsolicited media coverage of the product
Attempts by others to plagiarize the design

Recent cases have shown that courts set a high bar for proving secondary meaning, particularly for product designs that have been on the market for a relatively short time.

Industry-Specific Considerations

The application of trade dress protection can vary significantly across different industries:

Fashion and Apparel

The fashion industry has seen numerous trade dress disputes, with mixed results. While some iconic designs have secured protection (like the aforementioned Louboutin red sole), many fashion elements are considered too transient or functional to qualify for trade dress rights.

Technology and Electronics

Trade dress claims in the tech industry often face skepticism from courts due to the functional nature of many design elements. However, some companies have successfully protected distinctive product designs, such as the appearance of certain smartphones or computer interfaces.

Food and Beverage

Product packaging in the food and beverage industry has been a frequent subject of trade dress litigation. Courts have been more willing to grant protection to distinctive packaging designs, recognizing their role in source identification in a crowded marketplace.

Automotive

While overall vehicle designs have sometimes received protection (as in the Ferrari case), individual automotive components are often deemed functional and thus unprotectable as trade dress.

Strategies for Securing Trade Dress Protection

Given the challenges in obtaining trade dress protection, companies should consider the following strategies:

Design with Distinctiveness in Mind: When creating product designs or packaging, incorporate non-functional elements that are unique and memorable.
Document Development Process: Keep detailed records of the design process, including alternative designs considered, to help demonstrate non-functionality.
Invest in Brand Building: Extensive marketing and promotion can help establish secondary meaning for product designs that are not inherently distinctive.
Consider Registration: While trade dress can be protected without registration, federal registration with the USPTO can provide additional benefits and legal presumptions.
Monitor the Market: Actively watch for potential infringements and take prompt action to enforce trade dress rights.
Educate Consumers: Use advertising and packaging to draw attention to distinctive, non-functional design elements, helping to build consumer association.

The Future of Trade Dress Protection

As product design continues to play an increasingly important role in consumer decision-making, we can expect to see ongoing developments in trade dress law. Several trends are likely to shape the future of this area:

Increased Scrutiny of Functionality: Courts may continue to take a hard line on functionality, requiring clear evidence that protected elements are truly non-functional.
Digital Trade Dress: As more commerce moves online, questions about protecting the "look and feel" of websites and apps as trade dress are likely to arise.
Global Considerations: With international markets becoming more interconnected, harmonizing trade dress protection across different jurisdictions will become increasingly important.
Emerging Technologies: New technologies like 3D printing and augmented reality may present novel questions for trade dress law.

Conclusion

Trade dress protection remains a vital tool for companies seeking to safeguard their product designs and packaging from imitation. However, recent court decisions have underscored the challenges in securing and enforcing these rights. The balance between protecting brand identity and ensuring fair competition continues to evolve, shaped by changing consumer perceptions, technological advancements, and legal interpretations.

For businesses, the key takeaway is clear: while distinctive product design can be a powerful brand asset, relying solely on trade dress protection is risky. A comprehensive intellectual property strategy that combines various forms of protection – including utility patents, design patents, copyrights, and trademarks – is often the most effective approach to safeguarding innovative product designs in today's competitive marketplace.

As the law continues to develop in this area, companies must stay informed about the latest legal trends and be prepared to adapt their strategies accordingly. By carefully considering the interplay between functionality, distinctiveness, and consumer perception, businesses can navigate the complex world of trade dress protection and leverage it as part of a robust brand protection strategy.

Elements Not Considered Unprotectable Due to Utilitarian Functionality

Courts have rejected assertions that specific elements are unprotectable because of utilitarian functionality in many cases, including disputes involving:

Base of a table lamp (Artemide S.p.A. v. Grandlite Design, 672 F. Supp. 698, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1915 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)).
Radiator design and flying lady hood ornament of Rolls-Royce automobile (Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd. v. A & A Fiberglass, Inc., 428 F. Supp. 689, 193 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 35 (N.D. Ga. 1977)).
Design of bottle used to hold a liquid product (Sundor Brands, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 86, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1526 (M.D. Fla. 1986)).
Specific design used for a telephone with a transparent outer casing and brightly colored internal components, including colored lights which flash when the telephone rings (Maher & Maher, Inc. v. Unisonic Products Corp., 719 F. Supp. 161, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1052 (S.D. N.Y. 1989)).
Selling toy dolls with "adoption papers" and other props supporting fantasy that child is adopting another child (Ohio Art Co. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 870, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1496, 1500 (N.D. Ill. 1992)).
Placement of color accent on top wire strand and individual barbs of field fencing (Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc. v. Mid-States Distributing Co., Inc., 235 F. Supp. 2d 901, 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (C.D. Ill. 2002)).
Reinforced stitching patterns on sides and toe of an athletic shoe (K-Swiss, Inc. v. USA AISIQI Soes Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1340 (C.D. Cal. 2003)).
Overall configuration of Humvee automobile (General Motors Corp. v. Lanard Toys, Inc., 468 F.3d 405, 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1608, 2006 FED App. 0393P (6th Cir. 2006)).
"Who Dat," an expression of regional solidarity, used for (and on) various products (Who Dat Yat Chat, LLC v. Who Dat, Inc., 2012 WL 1118602 (E.D. La. 2012)).
Use of competitor's word mark as keyword to trigger advertising when entered into an internet search engine (Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1473 (4th Cir. 2012)).
Golden-yellow as a background color for packaging of paint brushes intended for use by professionals (Sweet Street Desserts, Inc. v. Chudleigh's Ltd., 69 F. Supp. 3d 530 (E.D. Pa. 2014)).
American flag on packaging of paint brushes intended for use by professionals (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Wooster Brush Co., 2015 WL 1471617 (N.D. Ohio 2015)).
For a French-press coffee maker, the product's overall appearance including "the metal band surrounding the carafe that forms support feet and the handle attachment, the domed lid, the rounded knob atop the plunger, and the C-shaped handle (Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated, 927 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 2019)).
For a whiskey bottle, "a combination of square bottle with a ribbed neck, a black cap, a black neck wrap closure with white printing bearing the OLD NO. 7 mark, and a black front label with white printing and a filigreed border bearing the JACK DANIEL'S trademark depicted in arched lettering at the top of the label, the OLD NO. 7 trademark contained within a filigreed oval design in the middle portion of the label beneath the JACK DANIEL'S trademark, and the words 'Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey' in the lower portion of the label with the word 'Tennessee' depicted in script" (VIP Products, LLC v. Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc., 2016 WL 5408313 (D. Ariz. 2016), aff'd, 953 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 1054 (2021)).
For fuel cylinders, the cylinders' shape, size, and colors (Irwin Indus. Tool Co. v. Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC, 2010 WL 3895698 (W.D. N.C. 2010)).
For the roof of a work topper (i.e., a covered cabinet placed on top of a pickup truck bed), a stair-step design (Astoria Industries of Iowa, Inc. v. Brand FX Body Co., 2010 WL 1433404 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2010)).
Exterior shape of a hopper bottomed grain trailer, including sloping-end walls and drop-center-side walls (Truck Equip. Serv. Co. v. Freuhauf Corp., 536 F.2d 1210, 191 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 79 (8th Cir. 1976)).
For a "three-checks-to-a-page desk-style checkbook with intermediate carry-around stubs and an accompanying carrying case with compartments for the checks and stubs," "the decorative box around the lines for recording information on the stub, and the design and color of the carry-around case" (John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966 (11th Cir. 1983)).
For a C-clamp, a cantilevered design (Clamp Mfg. Co. v. Enco Mfg. Co., 5 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1643 (C.D. Cal. 1987), aff'd, 870 F.2d 512 (9th Cir. 1989)).
For a video game, the color and configuration of the game pieces and game board (Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F. Supp. 2d 394, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1959 (D.N.J. 2012)).
For lollipops, a bag design including a basic overall red color, the brand name in white letters, a clear display window, and a yellow oval with blue numbers stating the number of pops in the package (Spangler Candy Company v. Tootsie Roll Industries, LLC, 2019 WL 1170749 (N.D. Ohio 2019)).
For pool clarifying liquid, packaging consisting of a transparent bottle, dark blue liquid, a white cap, and a specific layout of the white printing (Robarb v. Pool Builders Supply of the Carolinas Inc., 21 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1743 (N.D. Ga. 1991), aff'd w/o op., 996 F.2d 1231 (11th Cir. 1993), and aff'd w/o op., 996 F.2d 1232 (11th Cir. 1993)).

These cases demonstrate instances where courts have found that certain design elements or features are not solely functional and may be eligible for trade dress protection. The rulings cover a wide range of products and industries, highlighting the complex and case-specific nature of trade dress functionality determinations.

Unprotectable Trade Dress Due to Utilitarian Functionality.

Courts have ruled the following specific matters to be unprotectable as trade dress on the ground of utilitarian functionality:

Form and size of a shredded wheat biscuit (Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 59 S. Ct. 109, 83 L. Ed. 73, 39 U.S.P.Q. 296 (1938)).
Reflective paint placed on the top few inches of a fence post (Application of Pollak Steel Co., 50 C.C.P.A. 1045, 314 F.2d 566, 136, 136 U.S.P.Q. 651 (1963)).
Shape of a standardized plastic container (Price Food Co. v. Good Foods, Inc., 400 F.2d 662, 159 U.S.P.Q. 16 (6th Cir. 1968)).
Standard cylindrical reclosable metal container for soda biscuits (Keebler Co. v. Rovira Biscuit Corp., 624 F.2d 366, 207 U.S.P.Q. 465 (1st Cir. 1980)).
Configuration of a telephone handset which is nearly flat, has a mouthpiece at one end, an earpiece at the other, and push buttons in the middle, and is shaped like a three-dimensional rectangle having a slight convex curve and a gradual taper toward the mouthpiece (Leisurecraft Products, Ltd. v. International Dictating Equipment, Inc., 210 U.S.P.Q. 193, 1981 WL 40516 (D.D.C. 1981)).
Curlicue configuration for fried potatoes (Universal Frozen Foods, Co. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 697 F. Supp. 389, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1856 (D. Or. 1987)).
Configuration of a drainboard used in buildings' foundations (Mirafi, Inc. v. Murphy, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1337, 1989 WL 206491 (W.D. N.C. 1989), judgment aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 928 F.2d 410, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
General concept of a telephone with a transparent outer casing and brightly colored internal components, including colored lights which flash when the telephone rings (Maher & Maher, Inc. v. Unisonic Products Corp., 719 F. Supp. 161, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1052 (S.D. N.Y. 1989)).
Dovetail design of a concrete pouring form (Epic Metals Corp. v. Souliere, 99 F.3d 1034, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (11th Cir. 1996)).
Roofing seam configuration (Merchant & Evans, Inc. v. Roosevelt Bldg. Products Co., Inc., 963 F.2d 628, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1730 (3d Cir. 1992)).
For potpourri, packaging consisting of a double layer of cellophane tied at the top to form a bag shape (Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, Inc., 28 F.3d 863, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (8th Cir. 1994)).
Spiral structure of a household fan (Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft Corp., 58 F.3d 1498, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1332 (10th Cir. 1995)).
General concept of a bonsai flower embedded in plastic resin (William S. Geiger Corp. v. Gigi Accessories, Inc., 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1218, 1997 WL 458668 (S.D. N.Y. 1997)).
Plastic serving trays and platters which simulate gold or silver (Sabert Corp. v. Ullman Co., Inc., 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597, 1999 WL 1115048 (S.D. N.Y. 1999), judgment aff'd, 216 F.3d 1073 (2d Cir. 2000)).
Design of handle of web-cutter (Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kinedyne Corp., 296 F.3d 778, 63 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587, 1592 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Configuration of disposable pipette tips used with syringes, including "(1) the flange on top of the tip; (2) the fins connecting the flange to the body of the tip; (3) the plunger head; (4) the plunger; (5) the length of the tips; (6) the eight sizes of the tips; (7) the coloring scheme on the tips; and (8) the angle of the stump on the tips" (Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz GMBH v. Ritter GMBH, 289 F.3d 351, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534 (5th Cir. 2002)).
Support structure of wind-resistant road sign (TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 121 S. Ct. 1255, 149 L. Ed. 2d 164, 58 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (2001)).
Configuration of bottle which fits into a bicycle bottle holder (Talking Rain Beverage Co. Inc. v. South Beach Beverage Co., 349 F.3d 601, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1764 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Certainly. I'll continue with the remaining items:

Overall configuration of dental implant, specifically "(1) the external thread, (2) the gray color of the lower portion of the implant, (3) the shiny trumpet-shaped upper portion, (4) the rounded bottom and (5) the solid abutment" (Straumann Co. v. Lifecore Biomedical Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Mass. 2003)).
Dual strap hinge for a scrapbook (Antioch Co. v. Western Trimming Corp., 347 F.3d 150, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1673, 2003 FED App. 0368P (6th Cir. 2003)).
Configuration of beads of flash frozen ice cream (In re Dippin' Dots Patent Litigation, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (N.D. Ga. 2003), judgment aff'd, 369 F.3d 1197, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1707, 64 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 617 (11th Cir. 2004)).
Triangular design of disc brake caliper suitable for use with recreational trailers (Kodiak Products Co., Inc. v. Tie Down, Inc., 2004 WL 2599353 (N.D. Tex. 2004)).
Overall configuration of guide used to control fishing line (Fuji Kogyo Co., Ltd. v. Pacific Bay Intern., Inc., 461 F.3d 675, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1894, 2006 FED App. 0312P (6th Cir. 2006)).
Overall configuration of a folding chair, consisting of "an X-frame profile, a flat channel flanked on each side by rolled edges around the perimeter of the chair, two cross bars with a flat channel and rolled edges at the back bottom of the chair, one cross bar with a flat channel and rolled edges on the front bottom, protruding feet, and a back support, the outer sides of which slant inward" (Specialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Industries, L.P., 472 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Ill. 2007), aff'd, 616 F.3d 722, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1580 (7th Cir. 2010)).
Slot on cap of battery pack where slot allows cap to be opened with an ordinary coin (Invisible Fence, Inc. v. Perimeter Technologies, Inc., 2007 WL 273129 (N.D. Ind. 2007)).
Configuration of coupler used to join pieces of plastic pipe, consisting of coupler's "length, diameter, internal lead-in taper, flutes, arrows, the solid reinforced area between the flutes and end taper, and the base coloring of the material" (Minemyer v. B-Roc Representatives, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 2d 691 (N.D. Ill. 2009)).
Round shape for a beach towel (Franek v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2009 WL 674269 (N.D. Ill. 2009), aff'd, 615 F.3d 855, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1404 (7th Cir. 2010)).
White stripe around bottom of insulated paper cup was caused by relative placement of cup's three constituent layers (Dixie Consumer Products, LLC v. Huhtamaki Americas, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (N.D. Ga. 2010)).
Diamond design of quilting on toilet paper (Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1538 (7th Cir. 2011)).
Configuration of automotive grease pump (Groeneveld Transport Efficiency, Inc. v. Lubecore Intern., Inc., 730 F.3d 494, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1022 (6th Cir. 2013)).
For a sailing school, the combination of student feedback procedures, use of catamarans, specific teaching itineraries, and curriculum (Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 61 V.I. 797, 764 F.3d 303, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1340, 2015 A.M.C. 585 (3d Cir. 2014)).
For the packaging of a hole saw, see through plastic packaging which fits the general round shape of the product, has round insets fitting tightly around the product, and allows inclusion of a visible information card (Cybergun, S.A. v. Jag Precision, 2014 WL 7336073 (D. Nev. 2014)).
For the product configuration of a smartphone, a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners; a flat, clear surface covering the front of the product; a display screen under the clear surface; substantial black borders above and below the display screen and narrower black borders on either side of the screen; and when the device is on, a row of small dots on the display screen, a matrix of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners within the display screen, and an unchanging bottom dock of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners set off from the display's other icons (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 786 F.3d 983, 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
For a smartphone, the design details in each of the 16 icons on the phone's home screen framed by the phone's rounded-rectangular shape with silver edges and a black background (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 786 F.3d 983, 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
For a single-serving fruit desert, a design consisting of a round shape using six folds or petals of upturned dough (Chudleigh's Ltd. v. McCormick & Co., Inc., 2020 WL 5776952 (2d Cir. 2020)).
For headphone cables sold as an integral component of headphones, the three-dimensional configuration of part of the cables (Schutte Bagclosures Inc. v. Kwik Lok Corporation, 2016 WL 3352198 (S.D. N.Y. 2016)).
For plastic closures affixed to packages of baked goods by high-speed machines, "a square to slightly rectangular outer perimeter having beveled corners and a triangularly-shaped slot opening" (Schutte Bagclosures Inc. v. Kwik Lok Corporation, 2016 WL 3352198 (S.D. N.Y. 2016)).
For a personal care kit: "(1) the bag's cuboidal shape; (2) the bag's softness; (3) the zipper's location on the bag; (4) the 'folded and tucked' corners; and (5) the seam halfway up the bag's sides" (Arlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc., 847 F.3d 415 (7th Cir. 2017)).
For a poultry feeder: a generally octagonal shape which results from structures preventing animals from getting stuck inside the feeder (CTB, Inc. v. Hog Slat, Inc., 2018 WL 4035945 (E.D. N.C. 2018), aff'd, 954 F.3d 647 (4th Cir. 2020)).
For a poultry feeder: red and shiny gray colors where both colors attract birds (CTB, Inc. v. Hog Slat, Inc., 2018 WL 4035945 (E.D. N.C. 2018), aff'd, 954 F.3d 647 (4th Cir. 2020)).
For a television show auctioning diamonds: "a) the unique style and format of the show [seemingly composed of items b-i], b) its time slot and date selection, each week on alternate weekdays, from 5 to 7 p.m., on Tuesdays and Thursdays, c) the price range for its auctioned items, ranging from about $300 to $3000, d) its 'least to most expensive' format in which the least expensive items are sold first, ascending to the most expensive items at the end of the show, e) the length of the show, 2 hours, f) its focus on live TV auctions of jewelry, particularly diamonds, g) its carefully selected vendors, who appear on the show with the show's host, h) unique and proprietary camera angle and special lighting techniques developed by Plaintiffs using an Apple iPad tablet, i) the number and selection of items sold, usually about 30 items" (VBS Distribution, Inc. v. Nutrivita Laboratories, Inc., 2018 WL 5274172 (C.D. Cal. 2018), aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded, 811 Fed. Appx. 1005 (9th Cir. 2020)).
For automobile tires, the tread design (Toyo Tire Corporation v. Atturo Tire Corporation, 2021 WL 463254 (N.D. Ill. 2021)).
For a children's interactive discovery center, its overall look and feel (Kids' Town at the Falls LLC v. City of Rexburg, 2021 WL 5217619 (D. Idaho 2021)).
For walking tours, "an arrangement of elements that included a suspension bridge, caves, hiking paths ... forest and hills, and a network of platforms interconnected by zip lines ...." (Veve v. Corporan, 977 F. Supp. 2d 93 (D.P.R. 2013)).
For a wood stove, having two levels (Fisher Stoves, Inc. v. All Nighter Stove Works, 626 F.2d 193, 195, 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 961 (1st Cir. 1980)).
For a controller unit, the combination of (i) "a gray case"; (ii) "a raised and ridged circular bezel formed out of the case, located on the left side of the 'face' of the product"; (iii) "a red circular reset button set inside the raised/ridged bezel"; (iv) "a black-and-white label with an orange warning bar immediately to the right of the red button"; (v) "an LED indicator light nestled in the housing and located between the thermostat and flame-sensor connections along the right side of the unit"; and (vi) "the location and order of the thermostat and flame sensor quick-connect terminals on the right side of the unit" (Honeywell Intern. Inc. v. ICM Controls Corp., 45 F. Supp. 3d 969 (D. Minn. 2014)).
For shipping containers, "(1) the mesh design of the frame; (2) the galvanized steel component of the frame; (3) the front panels of the frame, including the manner in which the panels go on the frame and the manner in which they lock; (4) the pockets of the frame; (5) the dimensions of the frame; and (6) the design of the shelves, including the manner in which the shelves lock in place to prevent movement and require no tools or attachments to install or move" (Mobile Shelter Systems USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions, LLC, 845 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (M.D. Fla. 2012) aff'd per cur., 2013 WL 382598 (11th Cir. 2013)).
For expensive cosmetics, "a vertically rectangular cardboard bag, with a flat bottom, a handle at the top, and a two-toned color scheme" (Rodan & Fields, LLC v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 2010 WL 3910178 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010)).
For a computer, a security mechanism (Compaq Computer Corp. v. Procom Technology, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 1409, 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801, 1996-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 71264 (S.D. Tex. 1995)).
For a toy building system, the configuration of the interconnectable blocks (Tyco Indus. v. Lego Systems, Inc., 5 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1023 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd without op., 853 F.2d 921 (3d Cir. 1988)).
For a wooden, out-door play set, slide, A-frame design, materials, brackets, shaped-disk-and-rope swing, vertical-rail spindles, and sandbox (Rainbow Play Systems, Inc. v. GroundScape Technologies, LLC., 364 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (D. Minn. 2005)).
For a subcompact food processor, mounting a small plastic bowl directly above a plastic-encased motor (Sunbeam Corp. v. Equity Indus. Corp., 229 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 865 (E.D. Va. 1985), aff'd per curiam, 811 F.2d 1505, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1752 (4th Cir. 1987)).
For a water bottle, smooth sides and a recessed grip area approximately two-thirds up from the bottom (Talking Rain Beverage Co. Inc. v. South Beach Beverage Co., 349 F.3d 601, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1764 (9th Cir. 2003)).
For a kitchen towel, huckaback weave and windowpane check design (Standard Terry Mills v. Shen Mfg., 803 F.2d 778, 231 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 555 (3d Cir. 1986)).
For a snack food, the configuration of a stick-shaped baked product covered with chocolate or another flavored cream except for a section at one end (Ezaki Glico Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lotte Int'l Am. Corp., 986 F.3d 250 (3d Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 420 (2021)).
For an article of clothing combining goggles with a head and face covering, the design and configuration which allows easy breathing and sight while providing protection from wind and cold (Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. v. Gordini U.S.A. Inc., 849 F. Supp. 2d 963 (S.D. Cal. 2012)).
For products usable for attaching other items to walls, the product's overall design and configuration (Mechanical Plastics Inc. v. Tital Technologies Inc., 823 F. Supp. 1137, 28 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1522 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd w/o op., 33 F.3d 50 (2d. Cir. 1994); Mid-America Building Products Corp. v. Richwood Building Products, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 612, 44 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1207 (E.D. Mich. 1997)).
For a tow-behind mower, the product's overall configuration (Swisher Mower & Machine Co. v. Haban Mfg. Inc., 931 F. Supp. 645 (W.D. Mo. 1996)).
For a metal bathroom fixture, the convex shape used for doors and side panels (Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., 2012 WL 3217858 (C.D.
For a metal bathroom fixture, the convex shape used for doors and side panels (Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc. v. Am. Specialties, Inc., 2012 WL 3217858 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2012), aff'd, 565 F. App'x 660, 2014 WL 1243801 (9th Cir. 2014)).
For guitar bodies, the shape and general configuration of the body (Yamaha International Corporation v. Hoshino Gakki Co. Ltd., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

These examples demonstrate the wide range of product features and designs that courts have found to be functional and thus unprotectable as trade dress. The rulings span various industries and product types, from food items and household goods to electronic devices and industrial equipment. In each case, the court determined that the feature in question served a utilitarian purpose rather than purely identifying the source of the product, making it ineligible for trade dress protection under U.S. law.

This list underscores the importance of carefully considering the functional aspects of a product's design when seeking trade dress protection. Features that contribute to the product's use or purpose, or that affect its cost or quality, are likely to be deemed functional and thus not eligible for trade dress protection, regardless of their potential source-identifying characteristics.

Trade Dresses Deemed Unprotectable Due to Aesthetic Functionality

Courts have deemed the following purported trade dresses unprotectable on the ground of (arguably aesthetic) functionality:

For a cooking stove, the overall configuration (Rymer v. Anchor Stove & Range Co., 70 F.2d 386, 388, 21 U.S.P.Q. 300 (6th Cir. 1934)).
For dishes, specific graphic patterns covering their entire surfaces (Pagliero v. Wallace China Co., 198 F.2d 339, 95 U.S.P.Q. 45 (9th Cir. 1952)).
For a swimming pool liner, a designated graphic design repeated over its entire surface (Major Pool Equipment Corp. v. Ideal Pool Corp., 203 U.S.P.Q. 577, 1979 WL 25007 (N.D. Ga. 1979)).
For membership jewelry, the logo of the organization (International Order of Job's Daughters v. Lindeburg and Co., 633 F.2d 912, 208 U.S.P.Q. 718 (9th Cir. 1980)).
For jewelry, the words "Damn I'm Good" (Damn I'm Good, Inc. v. Sakowitz, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 1357, 212 U.S.P.Q. 684 (S.D. N.Y. 1981)).
For the soles of shoes, a specific wavy shape (Famolare, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 472 F. Supp. 738, 203 U.S.P.Q. 68 (D. Haw. 1979), aff'd, 652 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1981)).
For a telephone handset, a specific configuration (Leisurecraft Products, Ltd. v. International Dictating Equipment, Inc., 210 U.S.P.Q. 193, 1981 WL 40516 (D.D.C. 1981)).
For an outdoor, wall-mounted light-fixture, a specific overall configuration (Keene Corp. v. Paraflex Industries, Inc., 653 F.2d 822, 211 U.S.P.Q. 201 (3d Cir. 1981)).
For farm equipment used in conjunction with farm tractors colored "John Deere green," the same shade of green (Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 85, 217 U.S.P.Q. 252 (S.D. Iowa 1982), aff'd, 721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1983)).
For pieces of furniture, a specific design which is pleasing when viewed from the back of the item (Industria Arredamenti Fratelli Saporiti v. Charles Craig, Ltd., 725 F.2d 18, 222 U.S.P.Q. 754 (2d Cir. 1984)).
For wrought iron furniture, an incorporated floral stamping (Meadowcraft, Inc. v. B.I. Industries, Inc., 226 U.S.P.Q. 244, 1985 WL 72661 (N.D. Ala. 1985)).
For a truck sleeper cab, a specific roof contour (Unital, Ltd. v. Sleepco Mfg., Ltd., 627 F. Supp. 285, 229 U.S.P.Q. 755 (W.D. Wash. 1985)).
For toy animals, "tummy graphics" messages placed on the toys' stomachs (American Greetings Corp. v. Dan-Dee Imports, Inc., 807 F.2d 1136, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1986)).
For a dish towel, a check pattern (Standard Terry Mills, Inc. v. Shen Mfg. Co., 803 F.2d 778, 231 U.S.P.Q. 555 (3d Cir. 1986)).
For a restaurant specializing in country cooking, country-style décor, including the use of seeming antiques (Prufrock Ltd., Inc. v. Lasater, 781 F.2d 129, 228 U.S.P.Q. 435 (8th Cir. 1986); Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Doc's B.R. Others, Inc., 225 U.S.P.Q. 133, 1984 WL 1473 (D. Ariz. 1984)).
For an antifreeze container, the color yellow (Union Carbide Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 619 F. Supp. 1028, 226 U.S.P.Q. 1000 (D. Or. 1985), aff'd, 809 F.2d 1378, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1779, 87 A.L.R. Fed. 1 (9th Cir. 1987)).
For women's cotton lingerie, a Victorian-style "look" (San Francisco Mercantile Co., Inc. v. Beeba's Creations, Inc., 704 F. Supp. 1005, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1776 (C.D. Cal. 1988)).
For automobile replacement floor mats, the trademark or logo of that brand of car (Plasticolor Molded Products v. Ford Motor Co., 713 F. Supp. 1329, 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1023 (C.D. Cal. 1989)).
For flatware, baroque design elements (Wallace Intern. Silversmiths, Inc. v. Godinger Silver Art Co., Inc., 916 F.2d 76, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1555 (2d Cir. 1990)).
For an indoor-use exercise bicycle, a specific front-wheel design (Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Diversified Products Corp., 740 F. Supp. 517, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065 (N.D. Ill. 1990)).
For a costume, the design of the accompanying mask (Funrise Canada (HK) Ltd. v. Zauder Bros., Inc., 1999 WL 1021810 (E.D. N.Y. 1999); Don Post Studios, Inc. v. Cinema Secrets, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 311, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1285 (E.D. Pa. 2000)).
For a diamond ring, a specified design (DBC of New York, Inc. v. Merit Diamond Corp., 768 F. Supp. 414, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1308 (S.D. N.Y. 1991)).
For a child's sketching toy, a specified design (Ohio Art Co. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 870, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1496 (N.D. Ill. 1992)).
For airport telephone booths, the same overall configuration as the telephone booths already in place (Acoustics Development Corp. v. Phillips and Brooks/Gladwin Corp., 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1688, 1993 WL 444628 (W.D. Mo. 1993)).
For model railroad tracks, a realistic design (In re Polk's Model Craft Hobbies Inc., 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1711, 1724, 1995 WL 908275 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1995)).
For a mink coat, dyed color (Publications Intern., Ltd. v. Landoll, Inc., 164 F.3d 337, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1998)).
For wine, a combination of an exposed cork, a rounded flange, and a neck label (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 150 F.3d 1042, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1998)).
For new furniture, use of distress marks (Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. SanGiacomo N.A. Ltd., 187 F.3d 363, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609 (4th Cir. 1999); Woodland Furniture, LLC v. Larsen, 142 Idaho 140, 124 P.3d 1016, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1605 (2005)).
For jewelry, a metal cable design (Neiman Marcus Group Inc. v. Philippe Charriol International Ltd., 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1975, 2000 WL 1899938 (S.D. N.Y. 2000)).
For plastic serving trays, the colors silver and gold (Sabert Corp. v. Ullman Co., Inc., 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597, 1999 WL 1115048 (S.D. N.Y. 1999)).
For a bathroom faucet, the design of its wall-mounted, single control elements (I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 118 F. Supp. 2d 92, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1776 (D. Mass. 2000)).
For measuring spoons, a heart shape configuration (Bonazoli v. R.S.V.P. Intern., Inc., 353 F. Supp. 2d 218, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1992 (D.R.I. 2005)).
For doll boxes, a heart-shape configuration (Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011)).
For plush toy animals, realistic details (Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1877, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 612 (9th Cir. 1987); Aurora World, Inc. v. Ty Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2009)).
For children's merchandise, bright, fun colors and whimsical shapes (Jumpitz Corp. v. Viacom Intern., Inc., 97 U.S.P.Q.2d 2002, 2010 WL 3238953 (S.D. Cal. 2010)).
For a large towel, a round configuration (Jay Franco & Sons, Inc. v. Franek, 615 F.3d 855, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1404 (7th Cir. 2010)).
For dolls, trapezoidal boxes (Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011)).
For women's footwear which is completely red, red-colored soles (Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1937 (2d Cir. 2012)).
For novelty soaps, an overall appearance portraying elements of the periodic table (Bubble Genius LLC v. Smith, 239 F. Supp. 3d 586 (E.D. N.Y. 2017)).

These cases illustrate the wide range of product features and designs that courts have found to be aesthetically functional and thus unprotectable as trade dress. The rulings span various industries and product types, demonstrating the complexity of aesthetic functionality determinations in trade dress law.

Elements Not Considered Functional Based on Considerations Beyond Utility

Courts have classified the following as not being functional in opinions which arguably rely at least in part on considerations beyond utility:

For a hopper-bed trailer, a specific overall configuration (Truck Equipment Service Co. v. Fruehauf Corp., 536 F.2d 1210, 191 U.S.P.Q. 79 (8th Cir. 1976)).
For a parking meter, a cone-shaped configuration (Time Mechanisms, Inc. v. Qonaar Corp., 422 F. Supp. 905, 913, 194 U.S.P.Q. 500 (D.N.J. 1976)).
For handbags and luggage, a graphic mark used repetitively as decoration (Vuitton Et Fils S.A. v. J. Young Enterprises, Inc., 644 F.2d 769, 210 U.S.P.Q. 351 (9th Cir. 1981)).
For a tricycle for five-year-old girls, a configuration including a pink frame, blue handlebar and fork, white wheels with yellow hubs, and flower decals (Carolina Enterprises, Inc. v. Coleco Industries, Inc., 211 U.S.P.Q. 479, 1981 WL 1395 (D.N.J. 1981)).
For die springs, specific colors indicating load class (Barnes Group Inc. v. Connell Ltd. Partnership, 793 F. Supp. 1277 (D. Del. 1992)).
For carpet, use of a specific configuration for a folder displaying samples thereof (Fabrica Inc. v. El Dorado Corp., 697 F.2d 890, 217 U.S.P.Q. 698 (9th Cir. 1983)).
For a toy car, a design simulating a car used in a specific television show (Warner Bros., Inc. v. Gay Toys, Inc., 724 F.2d 327, 330 (2d Cir. 1983)).
For luggage, a specific overall configuration (LeSportsac, Inc. v. K mart Corp., 754 F.2d 71, 225 U.S.P.Q. 654, 78 A.L.R. Fed. 695 (2d Cir. 1985)).
For stackable, plastic office trays, a specific overall configuration (W.T. Rogers Co., Inc. v. Keene, 778 F.2d 334, 228 U.S.P.Q. 145 (7th Cir. 1985)).
For a toy bear, a design including specific features such as pastel coloration, inverted triangular head, heart-shaped paw pads, etc. (American Greetings Corp. v. Dan-Dee Imports, Inc., 807 F.2d 1136, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1986)).
For a halogen desk lamp with articulated supports, a specific configuration (Artemide SpA v. Grandlite Design and Mfg. Co., Ltd., 672 F. Supp. 698, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1915 (S.D. N.Y. 1987)).
For a restaurant specializing in country cooking, country décor, including seeming antiques (Freddie Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Ridgeline, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 72, 223 U.S.P.Q. 1139 (N.D. Tex. 1984), aff'd, 783 F.2d 1062 (5th Cir. 1986)).
For a greeting card, a design including specific features such as two-fold structure, deckle edge, rough edge stripe of color, etc. (Hartford House, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 846 F.2d 1268, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 2038 (10th Cir. 1988)).
For a gumball machine/aquarium, a design replicating a specific 1920's era gasoline pump (Jolly Good Industries, Inc. v. Elegra Inc., 690 F. Supp. 227, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534 (S.D. N.Y. 1988)).
For a lower-priced item of the same type, the overall configuration of a specific luxury product of the same type, such as an automobile or watch (Multiple cases across various circuits).
For canvas shoes, a small blue label on the back thereof (Keds Corp. v. Renee Intern. Trading Corp., 888 F.2d 215, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1808 (1st Cir. 1989)).
For a statuette, the same design used on a statute constituting a famous award (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 1442, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d 1435 (C.D. Cal. 1989), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 944 F.2d 1446, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1491 (9th Cir. 1991)).
For a halogen lamp, a minimalist bird-like profile (Lon Tai Shing Co., Ltd. v. Koch + Lowy, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1081, 1991 WL 170734 (S.D. N.Y. 1991)).
For China, the graphic design used on similar China by another firm (Villeroy & Boch Keramische Werke K.G. v. THC Systems, Inc., 999 F.2d 619, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1866 (2d Cir. 1993)).
For roof shingles, a trompe l'oeil design (IKO Chicago, Inc. v. Certainteed Corp., 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953, 1993 WL 524437 (N.D. Ill. 1993)).
For an athletic shoe, a configuration including specific design elements (L.A. Gear Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001, 1989 WL 282850 (S.D. N.Y. 1989), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 988 F.2d 1117, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1913 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
For a commercial-grade pressing pad, a green-gold color (Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159, 165, 115 S. Ct. 1300, 131 L. Ed. 2d 248, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161 (1995)).
For a bathroom scale, a decorative stripe down the middle of platform (Health o meter, Inc. v. Terraillon Corp., 873 F. Supp. 1160, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1369 (N.D. Ill. 1995)).
For a bicycle rack, a one-piece undulating design (Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 70 F.3d 251, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1790 (2d Cir. 1995)).
For the candy element of a children's novelty product, a specific diamond-ring shape (Topps Co. Inc. v. Gerrit J. Verburg Co., 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1412, 1996 WL 719381 (S.D. N.Y. 1996)).
For a doorknob, a specific neo-Georgian design (P.E. Guerin, Inc. v. Nanz Custom Hardware, Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d 1524, 1997 WL 777812 (S.D. N.Y. 1997)).
For beverage glasses, a specific pattern (Libbey Glass, Inc. v. Oneida Ltd., 61 F. Supp. 2d 700 (N.D. Ohio 1999)).
For a billiard parlor, a specific interior décor (Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1260, 58 U.S.P.Q.2d 1881 (9th Cir. 2001)).
For handbags and similar products, a specific monogram used with a combination of bright colors (Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 340 F. Supp. 2d 415 (S.D. N.Y. 2004), order aff'd in part, vacated in part, 454 F.3d 108, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (2d Cir. 2006)).
For gold jewelry, a specific plumeria flower design (Cosmos Jewelry Ltd. v. Po Sun Hon, Co., 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1126, 2004 WL 1515943 (C.D. Cal. 2004)).
For stuffed animals that wrap around edges of computer monitors and other electric devices, a decorative spotted cow design (Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Products, Inc., 384 F.3d 503, 72 U.S.P.Q.2d 1591 (8th Cir. 2004)).
For automobile accessories, use of the automobile manufacturers' graphic marks as decorations (Multiple cases across various circuits).
For floor tile, specific ornamental designs (Walker & Zanger, Inc. v. Paragon Industries, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 2d 956, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1981 (N.D. Cal. 2006)).
For t-shirts etc. sold to students and alumni, university colors (Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College v. Smack Apparel Co., 550 F.3d 465, 239 Ed. Law Rep. 874, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 2008)).
For miscellaneous merchandise, the images and names of specific cartoon characters (Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 654 F.3d 958, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1654 (9th Cir. 2011)).
For a whiskey bottle, a red-wax seal (Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc., 679 F.3d 410, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1693 (6th Cir. 2012)).
For various consumer merchandise, the insignia of NYC's police and fire departments, and subsets thereof (City of New York v. Blue Rage, Inc., 2020 WL 423432 (E.D. N.Y. 2020)).

These cases demonstrate the complex and often subjective nature of functionality determinations in trade dress law, particularly when aesthetic considerations are involved. Courts have found these elements to be non-functional, potentially allowing them to be protected as trade dress.

Products Granted Trade Dress Protection After Trial

Trial has resulted in protection of trade dress consisting of the products themselves or parts thereof in cases involving, among other items:

Cards used for the "Trivial Pursuit" game (Selchow & Righter Co. v. Decipher, Inc., 598 F. Supp. 1489, 225 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 77 (E.D. Va. 1984)).
A truck trailer body (Truck Equipment Serv. Co. v. Freuhauf Corp., 536 F.2d 1210, 191 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 79 (8th Cir. 1976)).
Automobiles (Multiple cases, including Ferrari S.p.A. Esercizio Fabriche Automobili E Corse v. Roberts, 739 F. Supp. 1138, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2013 (E.D. Tenn. 1990)).
A beverage server (Service Ideas Inc. v. Traex Corp., 846 F.2d 1118, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1937 (7th Cir. 1988)).
A parking meter (Time Mechanisms Inc. v. Qonaar Corp., 422 F. Supp. 905, 194 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 500 (D.N.J. 1976)).
A lounge chair (Contour Chair Lounge Co. v. True-Fit Chair Inc., 648 F. Supp. 704, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1353 (E.D. Mo. 1986)).
A foldable beach headrest (Sun Products Group, Inc. v. B & E Sales Co., 700 F. Supp. 366, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2009 (E.D. Mich. 1988)).
A line of "C" clamps (Clamp Mfg. Co. v. Enco Mfg. Co., 5 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1643 (C.D. Cal. 1987)).
A hand gun (Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Arcadia Machine & Tool, Inc., 10 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1522 (C.D. Cal. 1988)).
A ticket dispenser (Tveter v. AB Turn-O-Matic, 633 F.2d 831, 209 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 22 (9th Cir. 1980)).
A paint spray gun (Wagner Spray Tech Corp. v. Menard, Inc., 221 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 226 (D. Minn. 1983)).
Items of luggage (Multiple cases, including Louis Vuitton S.A. v. After Dark Boutique, 680 F. Supp. 1507, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1641 (N.D. Fla. 1988)).
A cast-iron stove (In re Certain Airtight Cast-Iron Stoves, 215 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 963 (ITC 1980)).
A cheese-wedge-shaped hat (Foamation, Inc. v. Wedward Enter., Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1287 (E.D. Wis. 1996)).
Kerosene heaters (Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int'l Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1149 (9th Cir. 1996)).
A line of stuffed bears (American Greetings Corp. v. Dan-Dee Imports Inc., 807 F.2d 1136, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1001 (3d Cir. 1986)).
A line of furniture (Imagineering Inc. v. Van Klassens Inc., 53 F.3d 1260, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
A golf course hole (Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I, Ltd., 942 F. Supp. 1513 (S.D. Tex. 1996)).
Lamps (Multiple cases across various circuits).
A football jersey (National Football League v. Wichita Falls Sportswear, 532 F. Supp. 651, 215 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 175 (W.D. Wash. 1982)).
A folding table (Vaughan Mfg. Co. v. Brikam Int'l, Inc., 814 F.2d 346, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2067 (7th Cir. 1987)).
A chair (Multiple cases, including Blumenthal Distributing, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc., 2017 WL 3271706 (C.D. Cal. 2017)).
A carpet display folder (Fabrica Inc. v. El Dorado Corp., 697 F.2d 890, 217 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 698 (9th Cir. 1983)).
An outdoor, portable shade structure (Gale Grp. Inc. v. King City Indus. Co., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1208, 1992 WL 163595 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 1992)).
A fishing reel (Brunswick Corp. v. Spinit Reel Co., 225 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 62 (N.D. Okla. 1984)).
A bank checkbook (John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966, 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515 (11th Cir. 1983)).
A trophy (Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 944 F.2d 1446, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1491 (9th Cir. 1991)).
Kitchen appliances (Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 775 F. Supp. 33, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1696 (D. Conn. 1991)).
A home ventilation fan, lights and heaters (Broan Mfg. Co. v. Associated Distrib. Inc., 923 F.2d 1232, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1617 (6th Cir. 1991)).
A table lamp (Artemide S.p.A. v. Grandlite Design, 672 F. Supp. 698, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1915 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)).
An ice-cream dish (Sweetheart Plastics Inc. v. Detroit Forming, Inc., 743 F.2d 1039, 223 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1291 (4th Cir. 1984)).
An outbox (W.T. Rogers Co. v. Keene, 778 F.2d 334, 228 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 145 (7th Cir. 1985)).
The use of a colored tab on the back pocket of blue jeans (Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 632 F.2d 817, 208 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 713 (9th Cir. 1980)).

Additionally, default judgment has been entered in favor of plaintiff regarding the trade dress of a portable lap-desk for supporting use of personal electronic devices such as laptop computers (Padded Spaces LLC v. Weiss, 2022 WL 2905887 (W.D. Wash. July 22, 2022)).

This list demonstrates the wide range of products that have been granted trade dress protection after trial. The protection often covers unique designs, configurations, or visual features that are distinctive and serve to identify the source of the product.

Products Not Granted Trade Dress Protection After Trial

Trial has not resulted in protection of trade dress consisting of the products themselves or parts thereof in cases involving, among other items:

Robot-like characters from a board game (FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 912 F. Supp. 1124 (N.D. Ill. 1996)).
Eyeglass retainers (Chums Ltd. v. Snugz/USA Inc., 64 F.3d 669, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1125 (10th Cir. 1995)).
The configuration of an automobile (Chrysler Corp. v. Silva, 892 F. Supp. 321, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1120 (D. Mass. 1995)).
A vehicle-top sign (Elmer v. ICC Fabricating Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
A color-band on the bristles of a broom (Libman Co. v. Vining, 69 F.3d 1360, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1751 (7th Cir. 1995)).
A chalk-holder (Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
A decorative marine propeller device (Hartco Engineering, Inc. v. Wang's Intern., Inc., 142 Fed. Appx. 455 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
A Christmas-tree stand (Decorations for Generations, Inc. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 128 Fed. Appx. 133 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Various toys, including dolls, stuffed bears, troll dolls, rubber balls, and toy trains (Multiple cases across various circuits).
A golf target (Disc Golf Ass'n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002, 48 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1132 (9th Cir. 1998)).
The configuration of articles of furniture (Landscape Forms, Inc. v. Columbia Cascade Co., 117 F. Supp. 2d 360, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1613 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)).
Back packs (Sunburst Prods. Inc. v. Cyrk Int'l, 98 F.3d 1358, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1939 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
The configuration of plastic fittings (Ark Plas Products Inc. v. Value Plastics Inc., 913 F. Supp. 1246 (W.D. Ark. 1996)).
The construction of a steel deck (Epic Metals Corp. v. Souliere, 99 F.3d 1034, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1705 (11th Cir. 1996)).
The design of a control valve (Versa Prods. Co. v. Bifold Co., 50 F.3d 189, 33 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1801 (3d Cir. 1995)).
Articles of clothing, such as neckties (Mulberry Thai silks, Inc. v. K & K Neckware, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 789 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)).
Lattice-cut potato pieces (Lamb-Weston Inc. v. McCain Foods Inc., 818 F. Supp. 1376 (E.D. Wash. 1993)).
Handles for kitchen tools (Multiple cases across various circuits).
The configuration of a lathe (Summit Mach. Tool Mfg. Corp. v. Victor CNC Sys. Inc., 7 F.3d 1434, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1302 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Acrylic designs used to simulate stained-glass windows (Designer's View, Inc. v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 1473, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1223 (S.D. Fla. 1991)).
The appearance of medical devices (Multiple cases across various circuits).
The configuration of a prefabricated drainboard (Mirafi Inc. v. Murphy, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1337 (W.D.N.C. 1989)).
Ornamental objects for home décor (Multiple cases across various circuits).
The configuration of an outdoor lighting fixture (Keene Corp. v. Paraflex Indus. Inc., 653 F.2d 822, 211 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 201 (3d Cir. 1981)).
A wood-burning stove (Fisher Stoves, Inc. v. All Nighter Stove Works, 626 F.2d 193, 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 961 (1st Cir. 1980)).
Items of jewelry (Multiple cases across various circuits).
The appearance of a kitchen towel (Standard Terry Mills v. Shen Mfg., 803 F.2d 778, 231 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 555 (3d Cir. 1986)).
A machine for making frozen desserts (Sno-Wizard Mfg. Inc. v. Eisemann Products Co., 791 F.2d 423, 230 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 118 (5th Cir. 1986)).
The appearance of a microwave oven (Litton Systems v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 221 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 97 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Color-coded springs usable within a transmission (Transgo Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Co., 768 F.2d 1001, 227 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 598 (9th Cir. 1985)).
The appearance of a milling machine (Textron, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 753 F.2d 1019, 224 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 625 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The appearance of a front-end loader (Deere & Co. v. Farmland Inc., 560 F. Supp. 85, 217 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 252 (S.D. Iowa 1982)).
The nozzle for a garden hose (R.M. Smith Inc. v. Collins Ltd., 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 465 (W.D. Pa. 1983)).
The shape of a rear view mirror (Interpart Corp. v. Imos Italia, 777 F.2d 678, 228 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 124 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The appearance of a voting machine (International Electronics Systems Corp. v. Shoup, 452 F. Supp. 684, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 79 (E.D. Pa. 1978)).
The appearance of a folding step-stool (Black & Decker Mfg. Co. v. Ever-Ready Appliance Mfg. Co., 684 F.2d 546, 215 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 97 (8th Cir. 1982)).
A swimming pool liner (Major Pool Equip. Corp. v. Ideal Pool Corp., 203 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 577 (N.D. Ga. 1979)).
The configuration of a parabolic heater (National Presto Industries, Inc. v. U.S. Merchants Financial Group, Inc., 2022 WL 3536443 (D. Minn. Aug. 18, 2022)).
The appearance of items of molded luggage (Baltimore Luggage Co. v. Samsonite Corp., 727 F. Supp. 202, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1450 (D. Md. 1989)).

This list demonstrates the wide range of products for which trade dress protection has been denied after trial. The reasons for denial vary but often include functionality, lack of secondary meaning, or insufficient likelihood of confusion.

Documents Article