October 19, 2018
Authored and Edited by Morgan E. Smith; Margaret A. Esquenet; Naresh Kilaru
In International Leisure Products Inc. v. Funboy LLC (No. 17-3982, 2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2018), the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal—with prejudice—of a trade dress action that had been brought to protect bird-shaped pool floats. Noting that trade dress protection (unlike patent and copyright protection) is unlimited in time, the court emphasized that “particular caution” must be exercised in protecting product designs, and that only “distinctive” designs—not “an idea, a concept, or a generalized type of appearance”—deserve protection.
International Leisure Products (“Swimline”) had filed suit against Funboy to protect the design of its “Giant Swan” pool floats (one of which is pictured above). Swimline asserted that its trade dress included these seven elements:
But in describing its trade dress as “a bird, possibly resembling a swan,” it was apparent that Swimline was not even limiting the protection it sought to swan-shaped floats. (Swimline also sold pool floats shaped like other birds, including flamingos.)
The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that Swimline had not “allege[d] a distinct, non-generic trade dress.” It pointed, in particular, to Swimline’s use of “subjective descriptors” such as “pleasing appearance” and “aesthetic proportion,” and it noted that trade dress should not be protected where it lacks “sufficiently objective identifiers.” Further, the court noted that some of Swimline’s alleged trade dress elements contained “optional” or “alternative” features, and it concluded that it “was difficult to discern in [Swimline’s] description a single distinctive look.”
While Swimline attempted to buttress the written description of its trade dress by pointing to a photograph in its complaint (shown above), the court found the photograph insufficient. Under its case law, the court said, “a visual representation of the asserted trade dress does not excuse ‘the party seeking protection’ from its burden of ‘point[ing] to elements and features that distinguish its trade dress.”
Moreover, the court recognized that the “key consideration” underlying trademark law is “source identification.” Here, though, the court concluded that “a swan-shaped pool float represents the type of design choice that is ‘almost invariably’ intended ‘to render the product itself more useful or more appealing’ rather than to ‘identify the [product’s] source.’” In the court’s view, Swimline “appear[ed] to be seeking protection for a trade dress that would encompass any bird-shaped pool float with even a passing resemblance to [Swimline’s] GIANT SWANTM.” The court thus concluded that Swimline’s claimed trade dress was “impermissibly overbroad” and that Swimline had failed to state a claim for trade dress infringement.
Additionally, Swimline did not dispute that if its trade dress was not protectable, its related claims (of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark dilution) would fail as well. Accordingly, the Second Circuit also affirmed their dismissal. Moreover, the court affirmed the dismissal of Swimline’s final claim—for unjust enrichment—because Swimline had not alleged that Funboy had “obtained some unfair benefit.”
Finally, the court rejected Swimline’s assertion that its claims should not have been dismissed “with prejudice.” As the court pointed out, Swimline neither sought leave from the district court to file a third amended complaint nor said, in its Second Circuit brief, how it could cure its pleading deficiencies. Thus, the Second Circuit held, the decision to make the dismissals with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion.
Copyright © 2018 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
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.