Content deleted Content added
Updated the intro. |
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) (Pancho507 - 22012 |
||
Line 18:
==Aesthetic Functionality==
In the United States, the “functionality” doctrine exists to stop a party from obtaining exclusive trade dress or trademark rights in the functional features of a product or its packaging. The doctrine developed as a way to preserve the division between what trademark law protects and areas that are better protected by patent or copyright law. Thus, the functionality doctrine serves to prevent trademark owners from inhibiting legitimate competition <ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx |title=Archived copy |access-date=2015-04-27 |archive-date=2015-03-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150315021653/http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx |url-status=dead }}</ref>
When the aesthetic development of the good is intended to enhance the design and make the product more commercially desirable, trademark protection may be denied because the consumer is drawn to the design. The distinctiveness of the mark serves to identify the product rather than the source, and trademark protection becomes inappropriate. The underlying theory as aesthetics become integrated with functionality, the resulting product strongly resembles product design, which may receive no trademark protection absent secondary meaning.<ref>Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., 778 F. Supp. 2d 445, 447–48 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)</ref>
| |||