Functionality doctrine: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:24, 8 March 2014

Revision as of 11:23, 5 April 2014

Line 7:

* Whether a feature is essential to the use or purpose of the product; or

* Whether a feature affects the cost or quality of the product; or

* Whether granting of trademark for the exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation related disadvantage<ref>''[[Qualitex v. Jacobson Products]]'', 514 U.S. 159 (1995)</ref>

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>.

==Aesthetic Functionality==

{{Empty section|date=April 2014}}

==See also==

* [[Idea-expression divide]]

* [[Trade dress]]

{{US-law-stub}}

==References==