Functionality doctrine: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:58, 2 November 2016

Revision as of 03:27, 6 December 2016

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

an 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==

Line 17 ⟶ 19:

This defense is generally seen in the fashion industry. Clothing brands can only be protected if they've acquired secondary meaning, and most of clothing design is held to be functional and is afforded no protection.<ref>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/205/</ref>

booty

==See also==