Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: title. Changed bare reference to CS1/2. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 1397/2196 |
Add banner {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. After at least 7 passes by @Citation bot since 20220821, this article still has 1 untagged bare URL ref |
||
Line 1:
{{Cleanup bare URLs|date=August 2022}}
{{Intellectual property}}
In [[United States trademark law]], the '''functionality doctrine''' prevents [[manufacturer]]s from protecting specific features of a product by means of [[trademark]] law.<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_trademark Functionality doctrine] at [[Wex]], from the [[Legal Information Institute]]</ref> There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, [[machine]]s, and material [[invention]]s. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise.<ref>''[[TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.]]'', 532 U.S. 23 (2001)</ref> Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of [[copyright]] law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship.<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|17|102}}(a)</ref>
| |||