Functionality doctrine: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:58, 25 October 2022

Revision as of 11:58, 10 November 2024

Line 2:

{{Cleanup bare URLs|date=August 2022}}

{{Intellectual property}}

Under [[United States trademark law]], the '''functionality doctrine''' provides that product features that are functional cannot be protected as [[Trademark|trademarks]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=functionality doctrine (trademark) |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_(trademark) |access-date=2024-11-10 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en |quote="The functionality doctrine is a rule in trademark law which states that functional product features cannot serve as a trademark. A product feature is considered functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the product or if it affects the cost or quality of the product. For example, in Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., the court decided that certain conveyor belt shapes were functional due to their increased performance over alternative designs and were therefore not eligible to be considered a trademark."}}</ref> A product feature is considered functional if it is essential to the product’s use or purpose, or if it has an impact on the product’s cost or quality.<ref name=":0" /> The purpose of the doctrine is to encourage legitimate competition by ensuring a balance between trademark law and patent law.<ref>{{Cite web |title=1202.02(a)(ii) Purpose of Functionality Doctrine |url=https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/result/TMEP-1200d1e914.html?q=Functionality%20Doctrine&ccb=on&ncb=off&icb=off&fcb=off&ver=current&syn=adj |access-date=2024-11-10 |website=tmep.uspto.gov |quote="The functionality doctrine, which prohibits registration of functional product features, is intended to encourage legitimate competition by maintaining a proper balance between trademark law and patent law."}}</ref>

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>

A key case illustrating the functionality doctrine is ''[[TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.|Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.]]'' (2001). In this case, the Supreme Court held that a dual-spring design for a road sign was not eligible for [[trade dress]] protection—a category within trademark law—because it served a purpose beyond “informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff.<ref name="Case_600">{{cite court|litigants=Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.|vol=532|reporter=U.S.|opinion=23|pinpoint=|court=|date=2001|quote=|url=https://casetext.com/case/traffix-devices-inc-v-marketing-displays-inc|accessdate=2024-11-10}}</ref>

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>

==Utilitarian Functionality==