seeing red: Recent Developments in the Functionality Doctrine

by: Katherine Laatsch Fink the article or affects its cost or quality.3

As color and aesthetics Over time, certain courts have also have become increasingly prohibited trademark protection under important to identity, the doctrine of “aesthetic functionality.” those features have been A design is considered “aesthetically subject to judicial scrutiny regarding functional” if its “aesthetic value lies in their ability to serve as in the its ability to confer a significant benefit that past year. For example, when we see a cannot practically be duplicated by the use of 4 robin’s-egg blue box, we think Tiffany & alternative designs.” Co. (Tiffany). Not surprisingly, Tiffany At issue in Christian Louboutin, was has trademark registrations protecting its whether the color red for the soles on 1 iconic blue box. But what if robin’s- shoes was aesthetically functional and egg blue served as a “function” for the therefore not protectable as a trademark. 11 box or otherwise significantly inhibited In that case, Christian Louboutin S.A. competition by limiting the range of (Christian Louboutin) accused Yves Saint erty Up dateBanner & Witcoff | Intellectual Pro p erty | fall/ w inter 2012 alternative designs for a box? According Laurent America, Inc. (YSL) of trademark to the functionality doctrine of of its trademarked and law, it may not be protectable. allegedly iconic red sole following YSL’s

The functionality doctrine has been at issue introduction of certain shoes in its 2011 in two recent cases: Christian Louboutin Cruise Collection. YSL’s shoes at issue S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., __ were monochromatic, including the sole. F.3d __, 2012 WL 3832285 (2d Cir. Sept. Some of YSL’s shoes came in red, with the 5, 2012), rev’g in part 778 F. Supp. 2d 445 soles resembling Christian Louboutin’s (S.D.N.Y. 2011), and Maker’s Mark Distillery, trademarked red sole. The shoes at issue Inc. v. Diageo North America Inc., 679 F.3d 410 are shown below: (6th Cir. 2012).

This doctrine provides that functional product features cannot obtain trademark protection, even if they have obtained U.S. Trademark Registration Christian Louboutin Shoe Accused YSL Shoe secondary meaning, i.e., if they have No. 3,361,597 become a brand identifier.2 Functionality has been analyzed in two ways: utilitarian The Supreme Court has held that a color 1 See, e.g. U.S. Trademark functionality and aesthetic functionality. can serve as a trademark “where that color Registration Nos. 2,184,128 and 2,359,351. Utilitarian functionality “forbids the has attained ‘secondary meaning’ and 2 McCarthy § 7:66. use of a product’s feature as a trademark therefore identifies and distinguishes a 3 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 169 where doing so will put a competitor at particular brand (and thus indicates its (1995) (internal citations and 5 quotations omitted). a significant disadvantage because the ‘source’).” In other words, when color 4 Id.at 170 (internal citations serves to indicate the origin of a product and quotations omitted). feature is essential to the use or purpose of 5 Id. at 163. or service, it may be protected as More 3 12 Banner & Witcoff | Intellectual Update | fall/winter 2012 10 9 8 7 6 ChristianLouboutinS.A.v. ChristianLouboutinS.A.v. ChristianLouboutinS.A.v. SeeDippin’Dots,Inc.v. Id. (1982)). Inc. 456U.S.844,851n.11 Labs., Inc.v. IvesLabs., 5, 2012)(quotingInwood 3832285, at*12(2dCir. Sept. Inc., Yves SaintLaurentAmerica, 50, 454(S.D.N.Y. 2011) Inc., Yves SaintLaurent America, 5, 2012). 3832285, at*1(2dCir. Sept. Inc., Yves SaintLaurent America, 1983). , 721F.2daff’d 253(8thCir. loaders totheirtractors”), “prefer tomarchtheir functional becausefarmers equipment heldaesthetically Iowa 1982)(greenforfarm Inc., 560F. Supp.85,98(S.D. Deere &Co.v. Farmhand, signifies chocolate,etc.”); signifies vanilla,brown signifies strawberry, white ice cream,forexample,pink indicates theflavorof is functionalbecauseit (11th Cir. 2004)(“Thecolor LLC, 369F.3d 1197,1203-06 Frosty BitesDistribution, at *14. __ F.3d __,2012 WL 778 F. Supp.2d445,449- __ F.3d __,2012WL

[seeing red,fromp in thefashionindustry. asatrademarksingle colorcanneverserve reversed thedistrictcourt’s holdingthata In color mayhaveacertainfunction: a fashionitem(i.e.,shoeorgarment), a particularcolorbecauseinthecontextof designer shouldnothaveamonopolyover against YSLandexplainedthatafashion injunctionmotion forapreliminary court haddeniedChristianLouboutin’s rather thantheproductitself.” significance” ofwhichis“toidentifythesourceproduct a particulardesignerthatitbecomessymbol,“theprimary identifier —ifitisusedsoconsistentlyandprominentlyby meaning —andthereforeserveasabrandorsource context ofthefashionindustrycouldnotacquiresecondary We seenoreasywhyasinglecolormarkinthespecific asatrademarkifthecolorisfunctional. serve protectable mark.However, colormay not box originatesfromTiffany andthusisa above, noted a robin’s-egg blueboxindicatesthatthe as example, For trademark. a Christian Louboutin,theSecondCircuit outsoles –forexample,to reference reasons forseekingtouse red onits participants. YSLhasvarious hinder competitionamong other the colorredwouldimpermissibly designer shoemarketamonopolyon Awarding oneparticipantinthe meaning.. acquired secondary public recognitioninthemarktohave protection, evenifithasgainedenough outsole brandisentitledtotrademark unlikely abletoprovethatitsred the CourtfindsthatLouboutinis functions vitaltorobustcompetition, ornamentalandaestheticserves colorBecause inthefashionindustry age 11] 7 Thedistrict 6

fashion. Inanotherrecent case, The issueoffunctionality isnotlimitedto of a preliminary injunction. of apreliminary Circuit affirmedthedistrictcourt’s denial and notjustthesolewerered,Second monochromatic, suchthattheentireshoe However, becauseYSL’s accusedshoeswere remainder oftheshoe),stating, soles (wherethesolecontrastswith it pertainstocontrastingredlacquered Louboutin’s trademarkregistrationas The SecondCircuit disagreed,upholding from achievingthosestylisticgoals. other designerswouldbeprohibited trademark infringement,YSLand were tosucceedonitsclaimof garments. Presumably, ifLouboutin of color-coordinatingshoesand to createacohesivelookconsisting create amonochromaticshoe,and traditional Chineselacquerware,to product ratherthantheitself.” which is“toidentifythesource ofthe significance” ofa symbol,“theprimary by aparticulardesignerthatitbecomes used soconsistentlyandprominently as abrandorsource identifier—ifitis meaning—and therefore servesecondary couldnotacquirefashion industry mark inthespecificcontextof We seenoreasonwhyasingle-color 10

8

9

Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North On appeal from the district court’s grant America Inc., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012), of a permanent injunction barring Jose Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. (Maker’s Mark) Cuervo “from using red dripping wax on accused Jose Cuervo International Inc., the cap of a bottle in the sale, offering for Tequila Cuervo La Rojena S.A. de C.V., and sale, distribution or advertising of Cuervo Diageo North America, Inc. (collectively tequila products at any locality within Jose Cuervo) of trademark infringement the United States,”11 Jose Cuervo argued regarding Jose Cuervo’s use of a red that Maker’s Mark’s trademark on its red dripping wax seal on its tequila bottles. dripping wax seal was an aesthetically The bottles and asserted registration are functional feature of Maker’s Mark’s shown below: bourbon bottles. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagreed and upheld the district court’s ruling barring Jose Cuervo from selling its tequila in bottles with a red dripping wax seal.12 n

Maker’s Mark U.S. Trademark Maker’s Mark and Jose Registration No. 1,370,465 Cuervo’s Bottles

13 erty Up dateBanner & Witcoff | Intellectual Pro p erty | fall/ w inter 2012

11 Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America Inc., 703 F. Supp. 2d 671, 701-02 (W.D. Ky. 2010) 12 Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America Inc., 679 F.3d 410, 418-19 (6th Cir. 2012)