Content deleted Content added
Adding/improving reference(s) |
Added section covering the different ways the federal circuit courts will apply the functionality doctrine. |
||
Line 1:
{{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>[http://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>
Courts will look to the following factors when determining utilitarian functionality:
*
*
*
As of 2014 the federal circuit courts are split on their utilitarian functionality analysis. Most circuits, such as the Fifth Circuit<ref>''[[German Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz GMBH v. Ritter GMBH]]'', 289 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2002)</ref> and the Sixth Circuit<ref>''[[Antioch Co. v. Western Trimming Corp.]]'', 347 F.3d 150 (6th Cir. 2003)</ref> follow the Supreme Court's analysis in ''TrafFix Devices'', which focuses on whether the feature is essential to the use or purpose of the product. The Federal Circuit in contrast focuses its analysis on whether permitting a product feature to be trademarked would impair competitors<ref>''[[Valu Engineering v. Rexnord Corp]]'', 278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002)</ref>.
==See also==
| |||