Marketing professionals, in their quests to find new ways to distinguish products, now seek trademark protection for a wide array of product attributes, such as colors, odors, sounds, and shapes. Public policymakers have been willing to expand trademark protection to these realms, but unfortunately without formulating a coherent philosophical approach to guide their decisions. The author provides a conceptual model that enables marketers to predict how the Patent and Trademark Office and the courts will resolve specific questions regarding the applicability of trademark protection for product characteristics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World, Inc. (1976), 573 F.2d 4 (2d Cir.).
2.
Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc. (1982), 684 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir.).
3.
BenderlyBeryl L. (1988), “Aroma Driven: On the Trail of Our Most Emotional Sense,”Health, 20 (December), 62–65.
4.
BoothWilliam (1991), “Efficiency Is Right Under Your Nose,”The Washington Post Weekly Edition, (April 29–May 5), 37.
5.
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989), 489 U.S. 141.
BurgunderLee B. (1991), “Trademark Protection of Smells: Sense or Nonsense,”American Business Law Journal, 29 (Fall), 459–80.
10.
BurgunderLee B. (1990), “Product Design Protection After Bonito Boats: Where It Belongs and How It Should Get There,”American Business Law Journal, 28 (Spring), 1–32.
11.
BurgunderLee B. (1989), “Trademark and Copyright: How Intimate Should the Close Association Become?”Santa Clara Law Review, 29 (Winter), 89–119.
12.
BurgunderLee B. (1986), “Trademark Registration of Product Colors: Issues and Answers,”Santa Clara Law Review, 26 (Summer/Fall), 581–617.
13.
BurgunderLee B. (1985), “An Economic Approach to Trademark Genericism,”American Business Law Journal, 23 (Fall), 391–416.
14.
CarterStephen L. (1990), “The Trouble with Trademarks,”Yale Law Journal, 99 (January), 759–800.
15.
Centaur Communications, Ltd. v. A/S/M Communications, Inc. (1987), 830 F.2d 1217 (2d Cir.).
16.
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. (1981), 659 F.2d 695 (5th Cir.).
17.
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. (1992), 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir.).
18.
Deere & Co. v. Farmhand Inc. (1982), 560 F. Supp. 85 (S.D. Iowa), aff'd, 721 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1983).
19.
DiamanteJoseph, and SaundersDarren W. (1995), “If Harley-Davidson Has Its Way, the Resounding Roar That Its Motorcycles Make Could Become a Registered, Protected So and Under the U.S. Trademark Act,”The National Law Journal, (November 6), B5.
20.
DratlerJayJr. (1991 & Supp. 1996), Intellectual Property Law: Commercial, Creative and Industrial Property.New York: Law Journal Seminars-Press.
21.
DuftBradford J. (1983), “Aesthetic Functionality,”The Trademark Reporter, 73 (March/April), 151–203.
22.
Duraco Products, Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enterprises, Ltd. (1994), 40 F.3d 1431 (3d Cir.).
23.
Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc. (1995), 67 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir.).
24.
Esercizio v. Roberts (1991), 944 F.2d 1235 (6th Cir.).
25.
Federal Trademark Dilution Act (1996), Public Law No. 104–98, 109 Stat. 985.
26.
FolsomRalph H., and TeplyLarry L. (1980), “Trademarked Generic Words,”Yale Law Journal, 89 (June), 1323–59.
27.
GibbonsBoyd (1986), “The Intimate Sense of Smell,”National Geographic, 170 (September), 324–61.
28.
GleibermanMelissa R. (1993), “From Fast Food to Fast Cars: Overbroad Protection of Product Trade Dress Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,”Stanford Law Review, 45 (July), 2037–2072.
29.
GreenbaumArthur J., GinsburgJane C., and WeinbergSteven M. (1983), “Proposal for Evaluating Genericism After Anti-Monopoly,”Trade-Mark Reporter, 73 (March/April), 101–27.
30.
Herbko International, Inc. v. Gemmy Industries Corp. (1996), 916 F. Supp. 322 (S.D.N.Y.).
31.
In re Bose Corp. (1985), 772 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir.).
32.
In re Clarke (1990), 17 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1238 (Trademark Tr. App. Bd.).
33.
In re Morton-Norwich Products Co. (1982), 671 F.2d 1332 (Ct. of Claims and Patent App.).
34.
In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1985), 774 F.2d 1116 (Fed. Cir.).
35.
International Kennel Club, Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc. (1988), 846 F.2d 1086 (7th Cir.).
36.
John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc. (1983), 711 F.2d 966 (11th Cir.).
37.
KallanCarla (1991), “On the Nose,”The Los Angeles Times Magazine, (November 17), 115.
38.
Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. (1974), 416 U.S. 470.
39.
King-Seely Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc. (1963), 321 F.2d 577 (2d Cir.).
40.
Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd. (1995), 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir.).
41.
KriegerDeborah J. (1982), “The Broad Sweep of Aesthetic Functionality: A Threat to Trademark Protection of Aesthetic Product Features,”Fordham Law Review, 31 (November), 345–86.
42.
Krueger International, Inc. v. Nightingale Inc. (1996), 915 F. Supp. 595 (S.D.N.Y.).
43.
LandesW., and PosnerRichard A. (1987), “Trademark Law: An Economic Perspective,”Journal of Law & Economics, 30 (October), 265–309.
44.
LeiserAllan W., and SchwartzCarl R. (1983), “Techniques for Ascertaining Whether a Term Is Generic,”Trade-Mark Reporter, 73 (July/August), 376–90.
45.
LitmanJessica (1982), “The Problem of Functional Features: Trade Dress Infringement Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,”Columbia Law Review, 82 (January), 77–97.
46.
Nissen Trampoline Co. v. American Trampoline Co. (1961), 193 F. Supp. 745 (S.D. Iowa).
47.
Nutrasweet Co. v. Stadt Corp. (1990), 917 F.2d 1024 (7th Cir.).
48.
OgleJane (1985), “Exploring Scent Therapy,”New York Times Magazine, (November 17), 115.
49.
Paddington Corp. v. Attiki Importers & Distributors, Inc. (1993), 996 F.2d 577 (2d Cir.).
50.
Pebble Beach v. Tour 18 (1996), 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13186 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 10).
51.
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing (1980), 486 F. Supp 414 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd 687 F.2d 563 (2d Cir 1982).
52.
Quatitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. (1995), 131 L. Ed. 2d 248.
53.
Rogers v. Grimaldi (1988), 875 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.).
54.
SamuelsLinda B., and SamuelsJeffrey M. (1996a), “Color Trademarks: Protection Under U.S. Law,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (Fall), 303–307.
55.
SamuelsLinda B., and SamuelsJeffrey M. (1996b), “Famous Marks Now Federally Protected Against Dilution,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (Fall), 307–10.
56.
Schmidt v. Honeysweet Hams, Inc. (1985), 609 F. Supp 227 (E.D. Mich.).
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. (1964), 376 U.S. 225.
59.
Silverman v. CBS, Inc. (1989), 870 F.2d 40 (2d Cir), cert. denied 492 U.S. 907 (1989).
60.
SpratlingGary R. (1971), “The Protectability of Package, Container and Product Configurations,”University of San Francisco Law Review, 6 (October), 172.
61.
Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. (1968), 295 F. Supp. 479 (S.D.N.Y.).
62.
Stormy Clime, Ltd. v. ProGroup, Inc. (1987), 809 F.2d 971 (2d Cir.).
63.
Stuart Hall Co., Inc. v. Ampad Corp. (1995), 51 F.3d 780 (8th Cir.).
64.
TaylorGary (1995), “Golf Course Owner Copied Only the Best,”The National Law Journal, (December), A10.
65.
Trademark Law Revision Act (1988), Public Law No. 100–667, 102 Stat. 3935.
66.
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Toco Cabana, Inc. (1992), 120 L. Ed. 2d 615.
67.
Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc. (1976), 531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir.) cert. denied 429 U.S. 830 (1976).
68.
Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft Corp. (1995), 58F.3d 1498 (10th Cir.).
69.
W. T. Rogers Co., Inc. v. Keene (1985), 778 F.2d 334 (7th Cir.).
70.
Weight Watchers Int'l., Inc. v. Stouffer Corp. (1990), 744 F. Supp. 1259 (S.D.N.Y.).
71.
Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. (1983), 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir.).
72.
ZeiselHans (1983), “The Surveys That Broke Monopoly,”University of Chicago Law Review, 50 (Spring), 896–909.
