Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Protecting Trade Dress in Once-Patented Subject Matter
The recent decision, Fuji Kogyo Co. v. Pacific Bay Int'l, Inc., 461 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2006), confronts the question deliberately left unresolved in TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001), of whether a product design claimed in a prior utility patent can ever be protectable trade dress under the Lanham Act. Although setting a high bar to protectability, indeed a 'presumption' and 'heavy burden' that material claimed in a utility patent is functional and hence unprotectable once the patent term ends, the Supreme Court, of course, expressly elected not to foreclose such protection entirely. Thus, it refused the invitation of defendant TrafFix, and 'some of its amici,' to rule that 'the Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I '8, cl. 8, of its own force, prohibits the holder of an expired utility patent from claiming trade dress protection.' 532 U.S. at 35. Without itself addressing the constitutional question of how narrowly 'limited times' means 'limited times,' Fuji Kogyo does nothing to ease the burden in establishing trade dress protection for once-patented subject matter; it offers as well a new (if, perhaps, less than fully developed) analytical approach for applying the TrafFix presumption, asking whether the claimed trade dress would have infringed the expired patents.
A fishing line guide is one of a series of eyelets mounted along the length of a rod, through which the fishing line is threaded. Asked to tackle the question of whether Fuji Kogyo's previously patented fishing line guides could be protected as trademarks, the Sixth Circuit did not spare the rod in holding that because the designs were within the scope of Fuji Kogyo's expired patents, which to the court meant that Fuji Kogyo's own designs would have infringed its patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, judgment had been properly granted after trial dismissing its infringement claims and canceling the trademark registrations it had secured for the designs.
A potentially barbed issue in the waters left deliberately uncharted in TrafFix was that Fuji Kogyo's line guides were the subject not only of prior patent claims (and hence presumptively functional under TrafFix), but also ' on the other side of the ledger ' protected by three subsisting federal trademark registrations (which arguably should have overcome the presumption of functionality under 15 U.S.C. '1125(a)(3) and conferred a statutory presumption of validity under 15 U.S.C. '1115(a)), and had been the subject of seven design patents, which, although expired, likewise presumptively established the ornamental, non-functional nature of the designs under 35 U.S.C. '171. Although Fuji Kogyo might thus have entailed a knotty challenge of unsnarling a tangled line of evidentiary presumptions, the court cast aside any latent legal conflicts among the Lanham Act and the two patent presumptions, saying simply that there were present factual issues that could only be resolved at trial, 461 F.3d at 684, and that, in this instance, the evidence of functionality overcame the statutory presumptions of non-functionality under trademark and design patent law.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?