直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Ninth Circuit Acknowledges That Its Precedent on Functionality Is “Less Than Clear”

March 18, 2015

Authored and Edited by Naresh Kilaru

Plaintiff Moldex-Metric had used a bright green color to identify its earplugs since 1982. After defendant McKeon Products started selling earplugs in a bright green color, plaintiff sued for trademark infringement. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of functionality.

To determine whether the color green was functional for earplugs, the district court relied on the four-factor test set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Disc Golf Ass’n v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 1998). That test considers (1) whether advertising touts the utilitarian advantages of the color, (2) whether the particular color results from a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture, (3) whether the color yields a utilitarian advantage, and (4) whether alternative colors are available.

Applying this test, the district court found that the color green was functional and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Among other things, the court found that the plaintiff had touted certain benefits of the color in advertising, that the color provided some utilitarian advantage by making the earplugs more visible than certain other colors, and that only a limited number of colors provided such advantage.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), the court noted that the key inquiry in evaluating the functionality of a color is whether the color “is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.” Rather than address this core requirement, the district court erred by focusing entirely on the Disc Golf factors. As to how the Disc Golf factors exactly relate to Qualitex’s essentiality requirement, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that its precedent was “less than clear in this area.”

Although the decision is non-precedential, parties litigating functionality issues in the Ninth Circuit should be careful to avoid relying exclusively on Disc Golf. While the Disc Golf factors are “legitimate considerations” that the Ninth Circuit typically considers, they do not replace Qualitex’s core essentiality requirement.

Contacts

Naresh Kilaru
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4236
Email

Copyright © 2015 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.

Related Insights

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Articles

How Low Can You Go? Courts Lower Marking Defense Burden, Raising Patent Damages Risks

June 29, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Redesigns Done Right at the ITC: Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Determination of Noninfringement of Redesigned Products

June 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP