Functionality doctrine: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:39, 1 November 2016

Revision as of 07:58, 2 November 2016

Line 9:

* 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, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.]]'',<ref>532 U.S. 23 (2001)</ref>, 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==