April 21, 2020
Authored and Edited by Sydney N. English; Margaret A. Esquenet
Forney Industries filed a trademark application on the Principal Register for the color mark shown below for packaging for welding and machining goods.
Forney sought to register the mark without the showing of secondary meaning, and the USPTO Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that the mark was not inherently distinctive and required proof of acquired distinctiveness to be registrable on the Principal Register.
On appeal to the TTAB, the Board reached the same conclusion—that the mark was not inherently distinctive, holding (1) a color mark can never be inherently distinctive (whether on a product or its packaging), and (2) a color mark for packaging cannot be inherently distinctive without a defined peripheral shape or border. Forney appeal to the Federal Circuit under 15 U.S.C. §1071(a)(1).
The Federal Circuit held that the TTAB erred in both holdings.
First, the Federal Circuit held that the TTAB erred in holding that a color mark is incapable of being inherently distinctive. The court relied on the following three Supreme Court trade dress decisions:
Based on this precedent, the Federal Circuit found that Forney’s multi-color product packaging mark was like the mark at issue in Two Pesos and “falls firmly within the category of marks the Court described as potential source identifiers.” Given the proposed mark comprised a horizontal black bar with the color red fading to yellow, the Federal Circuit concluded that Forney’s mark could serve as a source of goods in that packaging and the TTAB should have evaluated the proposed mark for inherent distinctiveness.
Second, the Federal Circuit held that the TTAB erred in holding that a color mark for packaging may only be inherently distinctive when defined by a peripheral shape or border. The court explained that to determine whether trade dress is inherently distinctive, the primary question is whether “the trade dress ‘makes such an impression on consumers that they will assume’ the trade dress is associated with a particular source.” To answer this question, the court required the TTAB to consider the relevant Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342 (C.C.P.A. 1977), factors including: “(1) whether the trade dress is a “common” basic shape or design; (2) whether it is unique or unusual in the particular field; and (3) whether it is a mere refinement of a commonly-adopted and well-known form of ornamentation for a particular class of goods viewed by the public as a dress or or-namentation for the goods[.]” Moreover, the Federal Circuit held that whether a packaging trade dress is a source indicator depends on the “overall impression created by both the colors employed and the pattern created by those colors.” Having found that the proposed mark was not a mere color mark but also a “symbol,” the court vacated the TTAB’s decision and remanded for the TTAB to consider the distinctiveness of the proposed mark under the Seabrook factors.
The case is In re Forney Industries, Inc., No. 19-1073 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020).
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.