J u m p t o c o n t e n t
M a i n m e n u
M a i n m e n u
N a v i g a t i o n
● M a i n p a g e
● C o n t e n t s
● C u r r e n t e v e n t s
● R a n d o m a r t i c l e
● A b o u t W i k i p e d i a
● C o n t a c t u s
● D o n a t e
C o n t r i b u t e
● H e l p
● L e a r n t o e d i t
● C o m m u n i t y p o r t a l
● R e c e n t c h a n g e s
● U p l o a d f i l e
S e a r c h
Search
A p p e a r a n c e
● C r e a t e a c c o u n t
● L o g i n
P e r s o n a l t o o l s
● C r e a t e a c c o u n t
● L o g i n
P a g e s f o r l o g g e d o u t e d i t o r s l e a r n m o r e
● C o n t r i b u t i o n s
● T a l k
( T o p )
1
B a c k g r o u n d
2
O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t
3
S e e a l s o
4
R e f e r e n c e s
5
E x t e r n a l l i n k s
T o g g l e t h e t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s
T r a f F i x D e v i c e s , I n c . v . M a r k e t i n g D i s p l a y s , I n c .
A d d l a n g u a g e s
A d d l i n k s
● A r t i c l e
● T a l k
E n g l i s h
● R e a d
● E d i t
● V i e w h i s t o r y
T o o l s
T o o l s
A c t i o n s
● R e a d
● E d i t
● V i e w h i s t o r y
G e n e r a l
● W h a t l i n k s h e r e
● R e l a t e d c h a n g e s
● U p l o a d f i l e
● S p e c i a l p a g e s
● P e r m a n e n t l i n k
● P a g e i n f o r m a t i o n
● C i t e t h i s p a g e
● G e t s h o r t e n e d U R L
● D o w n l o a d Q R c o d e
● W i k i d a t a i t e m
P r i n t / e x p o r t
● D o w n l o a d a s P D F
● P r i n t a b l e v e r s i o n
A p p e a r a n c e
F r o m W i k i p e d i a , t h e f r e e e n c y c l o p e d i a
2001 United States Supreme Court case
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. , 532 U.S. 23 (2001), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the field of trademark law. The case determined that a functional design could not be eligible for trademark protection, and it established a presumption that a patented design is inherently functional.[1]
Background [ edit ]
The plaintiff , Marketing Display, Inc., held patents (US 3662482 , US 3646696 ) for a two-spring design used to stabilize traffic signs in strong winds. Following the expiration of the plaintiff's patents, the defendant , TrafFix Devices, Inc., started producing their own signs utilizing the same design.[2] The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging trade dress infringement based on the imitation of the distinctive design. The central legal issue addressed by the courts was whether trade dress protection could be granted to a product that was previously covered by an expired patent.
Opinion of the Court [ edit ]
The Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy , held that there can be no trademark protection for something that is functional because that would work as a detriment to competitors based on something other than reputation, which is the key consideration in trademark law.
The Court noted that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the characteristic for which protection is sought is not functional —but having a patent for a design raises a very strong presumption that the design was functional. A design is functional if it serves any purpose that makes the product work better, or makes the product less expensive to produce. That an alternative design is available does not undercut the functionality of a given design.
Discussing trademarks, we have said “ ‘[i ]n general terms, a product feature is functional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.’ ”. Expanding upon the meaning of this phrase, we have observed that a functional feature is one the “exclusive use of [which] would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.” . . . Where the design is functional under the Inwood formulation there is no need to proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity for the feature.[1]
Here, Justice Kennedy said, the design was clearly functional, and the plaintiff could not carry the burden of proving otherwise because the very characteristic that is sought to be protected by trademark is the one whose functionality was previously sought to be covered by patent.
See also [ edit ]
References [ edit ]
External links [ edit ]
t
e
Dormant Commerce Clause
Brown v. Maryland (1827)
Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)
George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)
Edwards v. California (1941)
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)
Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)
Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)
National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)
Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)
Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)
Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)
White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)
South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)
Maine v. Taylor (1986)
Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)
C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)
West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)
Granholm v. Heald (2005)
United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)
Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)
Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)
Others
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995)
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001)
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001)
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)
Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)
POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014)
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)
Copyright Act of 1976
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)
Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985)
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989)
Stewart v. Abend (1990)
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994)
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. (1996)
Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. (1998)
Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998)
New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)
Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010)
Golan v. Holder (2012)
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)
American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019)
Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019)
Allen v. Cooper (2020)
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)
Other copyright cases
Other patent cases
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)
Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916)
United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)
United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)
Altvater v. Freeman (1943)
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)
Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)
Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)
Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964)
Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964)
Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964)
Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966)
United States v. Adams (1966)
Brenner v. Manson (1966)
Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)
Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969)
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)
Dann v. Johnston (1976)
Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976)
Parker v. Flook (1978)
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989)
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)
Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)
Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001)
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)
LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007)
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008)
Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011)
Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011)
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011)
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)
Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)
Gunn v. Minton (2013)
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)
FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014)
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015)
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015)
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016)
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)
Other trademark cases
R e t r i e v e d f r o m " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TrafFix_Devices,_Inc._v._Marketing_Displays,_Inc.&oldid=1175150880 "
C a t e g o r i e s :
● 2 0 0 1 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s c a s e l a w
● U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e s
● U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e s o f t h e R e h n q u i s t C o u r t
● U n i t e d S t a t e s t r a d e m a r k c a s e l a w
H i d d e n c a t e g o r i e s :
● W i k i p e d i a a r t i c l e s i n c o r p o r a t i n g t e x t f r o m p u b l i c d o m a i n w o r k s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s G o v e r n m e n t
● U s e m d y d a t e s f r o m S e p t e m b e r 2 0 2 3
● A r t i c l e s w i t h s h o r t d e s c r i p t i o n
● S h o r t d e s c r i p t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m W i k i d a t a
● T h i s p a g e w a s l a s t e d i t e d o n 1 3 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 2 3 , a t 0 3 : 1 2 ( U T C ) .
● T e x t i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e r t h e C r e a t i v e C o m m o n s A t t r i b u t i o n - S h a r e A l i k e L i c e n s e 4 . 0 ;
a d d i t i o n a l t e r m s m a y a p p l y . B y u s i n g t h i s s i t e , y o u a g r e e t o t h e T e r m s o f U s e a n d P r i v a c y P o l i c y . W i k i p e d i a ® i s a r e g i s t e r e d t r a d e m a r k o f t h e W i k i m e d i a F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . , a n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n .
● P r i v a c y p o l i c y
● A b o u t W i k i p e d i a
● D i s c l a i m e r s
● C o n t a c t W i k i p e d i a
● C o d e o f C o n d u c t
● D e v e l o p e r s
● S t a t i s t i c s
● C o o k i e s t a t e m e n t
● M o b i l e v i e w