Functionality doctrine

<h2 id="utilitarian-functionality">Utilitarian Functionality</h2>
See also: <a href="/facts/Utilitarian_design/FYVkpojh">Utilitarian design</a>
Courts will look to the following factors when determining utilitarian functionality:

<ul><li>Whether a feature is essential to the use or purpose of the product; or</li>
<li>Whether a feature affects the cost or quality of the product; or</li>
<li>Whether granting of trademark for the exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation related disadvantage<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:7" href="#fn:7">7</a></li></ul>
As of 2014 the federal circuit courts are split on their utilitarian functionality analysis. Most circuits, such as the Fifth Circuit<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:8" href="#fn:8">8</a> and the Sixth Circuit<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:9" href="#fn:9">9</a> follow the Supreme Court's analysis in <a href="/facts/TrafFix_Devices%2c_Inc._v._Marketing_Displays%2c_Inc./EBaYfYLV">TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:10" href="#fn:10">10</a> 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.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:11" href="#fn:11">11</a>

<h2 id="aesthetic-functionality">Aesthetic Functionality</h2>
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 <a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:12" href="#fn:12">12</a>
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.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:13" href="#fn:13">13</a>
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.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:14" href="#fn:14">14</a>

<h2 id="see-also">See also</h2>
<ul><li><a href="/facts/Idea-expression_divide/DC8Tt3BI">Idea-expression divide</a></li>
<li><a href="/facts/Trade_dress/tW5XEgqm">Trade dress</a></li></ul>

<h2 id="references">References</h2>

<ol>
<li id="fn:1">"functionality doctrine (trademark)". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-11-10. The functionality doctrine is a rule in trademark law which states that functional product features cannot serve as a trademark. A product feature is considered functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the product or if it affects the cost or quality of the product. For example, in Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., the court decided that certain conveyor belt shapes were functional due to their increased performance over alternative designs and were therefore not eligible to be considered a trademark. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_(trademark)" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_(trademark)</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:2">"functionality doctrine (trademark)". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-11-10. The functionality doctrine is a rule in trademark law which states that functional product features cannot serve as a trademark. A product feature is considered functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the product or if it affects the cost or quality of the product. For example, in Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., the court decided that certain conveyor belt shapes were functional due to their increased performance over alternative designs and were therefore not eligible to be considered a trademark. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_(trademark)" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_(trademark)</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:3">"1202.02(a)(ii) Purpose of Functionality Doctrine". tmep.uspto.gov. Retrieved 2024-11-10. The functionality doctrine, which prohibits registration of functional product features, is intended to encourage legitimate competition by maintaining a proper balance between trademark law and patent law. <a href="https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/result/TMEP-1200d1e914.html?q=Functionality%20Doctrine&ccb=on&ncb=off&icb=off&fcb=off&ver=current&syn=adj" target="_blank">https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/result/TMEP-1200d1e914.html?q=Functionality%20Doctrine&ccb=on&ncb=off&icb=off&fcb=off&ver=current&syn=adj</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:4">Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001). <a href="/wiki/Traffix_Devices,_Inc._v._Marketing_Displays,_Inc." target="_blank">/wiki/Traffix_Devices,_Inc._v._Marketing_Displays,_Inc.</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:5">TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) <a href="/wiki/TrafFix_Devices,_Inc._v._Marketing_Displays,_Inc." target="_blank">/wiki/TrafFix_Devices,_Inc._v._Marketing_Displays,_Inc.</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:6">17 U.S.C. § 102(a) <a href="/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code" target="_blank">/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:7">Qualitex v. Jacobson Products, 514 U.S. 159 (1995) <a href="/wiki/Qualitex_v._Jacobson_Products" target="_blank">/wiki/Qualitex_v._Jacobson_Products</a> <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:8">German Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz GMBH v. Ritter GMBH, 289 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2002) <a href="/w/index.php?title=German_Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz_GMBH_v._Ritter_GMBH&action=edit&redlink=1" target="_blank">/w/index.php?title=German_Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz_GMBH_v._Ritter_GMBH&action=edit&redlink=1</a> <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:9">Antioch Co. v. Western Trimming Corp., 347 F.3d 150 (6th Cir. 2003) <a href="/w/index.php?title=Antioch_Co._v._Western_Trimming_Corp.&action=edit&redlink=1" target="_blank">/w/index.php?title=Antioch_Co._v._Western_Trimming_Corp.&action=edit&redlink=1</a> <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:10">532 U.S. 23 (2001) <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:11">Valu Engineering v. Rexnord Corp, 278 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002) <a href="/w/index.php?title=Valu_Engineering_v._Rexnord_Corp&action=edit&redlink=1" target="_blank">/w/index.php?title=Valu_Engineering_v._Rexnord_Corp&action=edit&redlink=1</a> <a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:12">"Aesthetic Functionality After Louboutin". Archived from the original on 2015-03-15. Retrieved 2015-04-27. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150315021653/http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20150315021653/http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx</a> <a href="#fnref:12" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:13">Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., 778 F. Supp. 2d 445, 447–48 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) <a href="#fnref:13" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:14">"Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000)". <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/205/" target="_blank">https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/205/</a> <a href="#fnref:14" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
</ol>

Functionality doctrine open-in-new

Functionality doctrine