George Lewis - Recent Decisions Before the TTAB

American Intellectual Property Law Association
RECENT DECSIONS BEFORE THE TRADEMARK
TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ON REGISTRATION
OF TRADE DRESS
Firm Logo
PRESENTED BY
GEORGE W. LEWIS
JAPANESE PATENT OFFICE
APRIL 7, 2014
AIPLA
Background バックグラウンド
米国法典第15編（ランハム法）商標の定義

“any word, name, symbol, or device, or any
combination thereof . . .いかなる言葉、名前、シンボル、又
はデバイス（工夫）、又はそれらの組み合わせ
a) used

by a person . . .人によって用いられる
to identify and distinguish his goods, including a unique
product, from those manufactured or sold by others and
to indicate the source of the goods, . . .” (15 U.S.C. §
1127)その者の商品を他の製造者又は他者の販売から識別して
特定し、その商品の供給源を示す…
Firm Logo
AIPLA
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159,
162 (1995) (cont’d) 最高裁Qualitex事件
•
. “[T]he language of the Lanham Act describes
[the universe of things that can qualify as a
trademark] in the broadest of terms . . . since
human beings might use as a ‘symbol’ or
‘device’ almost anything at all that is capable of
carrying meaning, this language, read literally is
not restrictive”人は殆ど全てのものにシンボルやデ
バイス（工夫）を用いるのでこの規定の文言そのものは
制限的ではない
― Qualitex v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159,
115Firm
S. Logo
Ct. 1300 (1995)
AIPLA
Trade dress is registrable if the matter sought to be
registered is:
トレードドレスは下記の場合登録可能となる
(1) inherently
distinctive or has acquired
distinctiveness; and 本質的に識別力がある
か、又は識別力が得られており、且つ
(1) is
not functional.
機能的ではない場合
Firm Logo
AIPLA
INHERENT DISTINCITVENESS
本質的識別力
Three following factors are to be considered in assessing a
package design whether the designs at issue are inherently
distinctive: 包装デザインに本質的な識別力があるかについ
ての３つのファクター
(1) whether the packaging is a common basic shape or design;
包装は、普通の基本的形又はデザインを有しているか

whether it is unique or unusual in the particular field, and
特定の分野においてユニーク又は非通常的であるか
(2)
whether it is a mere refinement of a commonly-adopted
and well-known form of ornamentation for a particular class
of goods viewed by the public as a dress or ornamentation for
the goods. 特定の区分の商品について普通に用いられており、
且つよく知られた形の外装を少し洗練させたに過ぎないもの
Firm Logo
か否か
(3)
AIPLA
PROVING ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS LITIGATION
識別力が得られたことの証明
•
•
Acquired distinctiveness requires
proof that the consuming public
associates the mark with a single
source.
識別力が得られたという立証の為に
は、消費者がそのマークを見て、１つ
の供給源を連想するか否かである
Firm Logo
AIPLA
A feature is functional if it: 特徴が、もし下記の場合は機能的
である





is essential to the use or purpose of the product, or
商品の使用ないし目的の為に必須である
it affects the cost or quality of the product and
商品のコストや品質に影響を及ぼす
would put competitors at a significant non-reputation
related disadvantage. 競争企業に対して、名誉に影響しない
不利益を被らせる
the existence of a utility patent that discloses the utilitarian
advantages of the design sought to be registered; the
existence of a utility patent that discloses the utilitarian
advantages of the design sought to be registered;
Firm Logo
advertising by the applicant that touts the utilitarian
advantages of the design; advertising by the applicant
that touts the utilitarian advantages of the design;
AIPLA
REGISTERED PRODUCT DESIGNS
candy, chocolate
exercise and toy hoop
brackets made of metal for
attaching traffic signals to
mast arms
fabric for manufacturing
merchandise to be sold at
military exchanges
Firm Logo
AIPLA
AESTHETICFUNCTIONALY
FUNCTIONALITY
- Refusal of Black Color for Floral Packaging (In re
AESTHETIC
– NOT
Florists’ Transworld Delivery, Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1784 (TTAB 2013) [precedential]
REGISTRABLE
Applicant sought to register a
purported mark consisting of the
color black applied to packaging for
flowers
Firm Logo
The color black "serves an aesthetic
function" when used for floral packaging;
there exists a strong competitive need to
use that color in order to convey a
particular message to the recipient of the
flowers. The color black may
communicate elegance or luxury, or may
have significance "on somber occasions,
such as in the context of death.”
A design feature is prohibited from
registration if the exclusive appropriation
of that feature would put competitors at a
significant non-reputation related
disadvantage.
AIPLA
"3-click" Sound Mark for Eyeglasses In re Sutro Product Development, Inc., Serial No. 77418246 (August 1, 2013) [not
precedential]
Applicant sought to register on the
Supplemental Register, a sound mark
for "eye glasses; optical glasses; [and]
sun glasses," the mark comprising "a
series of three, regularly spaced,
repeated clicks, wherein the clicks
resemble the sound of a small object
striking another metal object.”
Firm Logo
the sound produced is merely a natural
byproduct of the friction created by the
functional hinge, and any similar design
will naturally produce a similar or even
identical sound.
The hinges in its eyeglasses could have
been designed to not produce any
sound, yet the hinge would still have all
of its functional features.
REGISTRABLE- Held Not Functional while the hinge movements produce the
sound, the sound is not dictated by
functionality.
AIPLA
Non-Distinctive Product Design/Packaging for Clothing
In re Book to Bed, Inc., Serial No. 85262093 (June 21, 2013) [not precedential]
NOT REGISTRABLE - Held – NonDistinctive
the mark comprises "packaging for
sleepwear that consists of a transparent
bag enclosing a book positioned behind
matching sleepwear so that the cover of
the book remains partially visible from
the front of the packaging, together
with a ribbon positioned directly above
the book and sleepwear tying the neck
of the bag. The matter in dotted lines is
not part of theFirm
mark Logo
and serves only to
show the position of the mark."
Applicant's applied-for mark is a "mere
refinement of commonly adopted and
well-known product and packaging
arrangements." Despite being unique
in the marketplace, it is not
inherently distinctive.
AIPLA
Hershey Bar Product Configuration - In re Hershey Chocolate and
Confectionary Corporation, Serial No. 77809223 (June 28, 2012) [not precedential]
The mark is comprised of a
configuration of a candy bar that
consists of twelve (12) equally-sized
recessed rectangular panels arranged in
a four panel by three panel format with
each panel having its own raised border
within a large rectangle.
Firm Logo
The record included: (1) evidence that
flat rectangular shape and the "scoring"
of the product are functional features;
(2) a utility patent claiming a method of
scoring candy; (3) third-party candy bars
that are flat and segmented.
REGISTRABLE – NOT FUNCTIONAL
The Board recognized that scoring or
segmenting candy bars serves a useful
purpose, noting the many examples in
the record. But the Board stressed that
Hershey "is not seeking to register a
segmented rectangular candy bar of no
particular design.”
AIPLA
Thanks for your attention! Questions?

George W. Lewis, Esq.
 Westerman, Hattori,
Daniels & Adrian

[email protected]
Firm Logo
AIPLA

Download Report