Editing Trade dress (section)

===United States===
Trade dress protection is intended to protect consumers from packaging or appearance of products that are designed to imitate other products; to prevent a consumer from buying one product under the belief that it is another.<ref name=":1" /> For example, the shape, color, and arrangement of the materials of a children's line of clothing can be protectable trade dress (though, the design of the garments themselves is not protected),<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-150.ZS.html ''Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc.'', 529 U.S. 205 (2000)]</ref> as can the design of a magazine cover,<ref>''Reader's Digest Ass'n v. Conservative Digest'', 821 F.2d 800 (D.C. Cir. 1987), http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/821/821.F2d.800.86-7004.86-5495.html</ref> the appearance and décor of a chain of Mexican-style restaurants,<ref name="twopesos">{{cite web|title=Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 US 763, 112 S. Ct. 2753, 120 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1992)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12034599115584297601|website=Google Scholar|access-date=12 September 2017}}</ref> and a method of displaying wine bottles in a wine shop.<ref>{{cite web|title=''Best Cellars Inc. v. Grape Finds at Dupont, Inc.'', 90 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11114552205999238299|website=Google Scholar|access-date=12 September 2017}}</ref>

====Statutory source====
Trademark law is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of the United States (as opposed to patent and copyright protection law); as such, trademark law—and thus, trade dress—is enforced on the state level in addition to the federal level.

In the U.S., like [[trademark]]s, a product's trade dress is legally protected by the [[Lanham Act]], the federal statute which regulates trademarks and trade dress.<ref>Lanham Act, {{USC|15|22}}</ref> Under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a product's trade dress can be protected without formal registration with the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] (USPTO).<ref>Merges at 650; Lanham Act, {{USCSub|15|1125|a}}</ref> In part, section 43(a) states the following:

<blockquote>Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which{{ubl|item_style=margin-left: 3em;text-indent:-1.5em
|(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of  his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
|(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,}}
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged by such an act.<ref>{{USCSub|15|1125|a}}</ref></blockquote>

This statute allows the owner of a particular trade dress ("container for goods") to sue an infringer (a person or entity who illegally copies that trade dress) for violating section 43(a) without registering that trade dress with any formal agency or system (unlike the registration and application requirements for enforcing other forms of intellectual property, such as patents).  It is commonly seen as providing "federal common law" protection for trade dress (and trademarks).<ref>Merges at 650</ref>

====Formal registration====

Trade dress may be registered with the PTO in either the [[Principal Register]] or the [[Supplemental Register]].<ref>PTO website, http://www.uspto.gov/</ref> Although registration is not required for legal protection, registration offers several advantages.  In the Principal Register, a registrant gains nationwide [[constructive use]] and [[constructive notice]], which prevent others from using or registering that registrant's trade dress (without contesting the registration).<ref>Lanham Act § 7(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1057(c)</ref> Further, a registrant in the Principal Register gains [[incontestable status]] after five years, which eliminates many of the ways for another party to challenge the registration.<ref>Lanham Act § 15, 15 U.S.C. § 1057(c)</ref> Registration under the Supplemental Register allows the registrant to protect its trade dress in foreign countries, although the protections are much more limited than protections under the Principal Register in the U.S.<ref>Menell at 696</ref>

====Legal requirements====

It can be difficult to obtain protection for trade dress, as applicants must prove that the design has secondary meaning to consumers and is then further limited by the functionality doctrine.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP|title=Entrepreneur's Guide to Intellectual Property – Blog Series: Protecting Your Products and Packaging with Trade Dress|journal=The National Law Review|date=10 June 2012|url=http://www.natlawreview.com/article/entrepreneur-s-guide-to-intellectual-property-blog-series-protecting-your-products-a|access-date=17 November 2014|issn=2161-3362}}</ref>

=====Functionality=====

To gain registration in the Principal Register or common law protection under the Lanham Act, a trade dress must not be "functional". That is, the configuration of shapes, designs, colors, or materials that make up the trade dress in question must not serve a utility or function outside of creating recognition in the consumer's mind.<ref>{{cite web|title=Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 US 159, 115 S. Ct. 1300, 131 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1995)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17905304466595211702|website=Google Scholar|access-date=12 September 2017}}</ref> For example, even though consumers associated a distinct spring design for wind resistant road signs with a particular company, the spring design was not protectable for trade dress purposes because the springs served the function of withstanding heavy wind conditions.<ref>{{cite web|title=TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 US 23, 121 S. Ct. 1255, 149 L. Ed. 2d 164 (2001)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12704680276957369308|website=Google Scholar|access-date=12 September 2017}}</ref>

What is considered "functional" depends upon the specific product or thing sought to be protected.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Feisthamel|first1=Karen|last2=Kelly|first2=Amy|last3=Sistek|first3=Johanna|title=Trade Dress: Best Practices for the Registration of Product Configuration Trade Dress with the USPTO|journal=The Trademark Reporter|date=November 2005|volume=95|issue=9|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/thetmr95&div=121|access-date=12 September 2017}}</ref> For example, the color red in a line of clothing may not be functional (and thus part of protectable trade dress) whereas the same color on a stop sign would be functional because the color red serves the function of putting drivers on alert (and thus would not be part of a protectable trade dress).

=====Distinctiveness=====
To gain registration in the Principal Register or common law protection under the Lanham Act, a trade dress must be "distinctive."  This means that consumers perceive a particular trade dress as identifying a source of a product.<ref name="twopesos"/>

Claimed trade dress in the product design—as opposed to product packaging—context can no longer be "inherently distinctive"; it must acquire distinctiveness through "secondary meaning".<ref>{{cite web|title=''Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.'', 529 U.S. 205, 120 S. Ct. 1339, 146 L. Ed. 182, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11551321958641509496|website=Google Scholar|access-date=12 September 2017}}</ref> Distinctiveness through secondary meaning means that although a trade dress is not distinctive on its face, the use of the trade dress in the market (the "goodwill" of the trade dress) has created an association between that trade dress and a source in the mind of the consumer.

Although the law is evolving, as it stands now, product packaging (including packaging in very general terms, such as a building's décor) may be inherently distinctive.<ref name="twopesos"/> However, product design, that is the design or shape of the product itself, may not be inherently distinctive, and must acquire secondary meaning.

====Protection for electronic interfaces and websites====
Although the exact boundaries of protection are still uncertain, courts are beginning to allow trade dress protection for the overall "[[look and feel]]" of a website.  In ''Blue Nile, Inc. v. Ice.com, Inc.'', the plaintiff sued the defendant in the [[United States District Court for the Western District of Washington]] for copying the overall "look and feel" of plaintiff's retail jewelry websites, including the design of plaintiff's search pages.<ref>{{cite web|title=''Blue Nile, Inc. v. Ice.com, Inc.'', 478 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (W.D. Wash., 2007)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16544665442853652360|website=Google Scholar|access-date=12 September 2017}}</ref> Although the court ordered more factual development before it could rule definitively on the issue, the court did hold that it was possible for the look and feel of the websites to have trade dress protection if the plaintiff's copyright claims did not already cover those parts.  In ''[[SuicideGirls|SG Services]], Inc. v. God's Girls, Inc.'', the [[United States District Court for the District of Oregon]] denied trade dress protection for the plaintiff's website because the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the website was non-functional or distinctive.<ref>{{cite web|title=''SG Serv., Inc. v. God's Girls, Inc.'', non-reported case, 2007 WL 2315437 (C.D. Cal. 2007)|url=http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/3:05-cv-01526-28-DOR.pdf|website=WebsUpp|access-date=12 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100705111818/http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/3:05-cv-01526-28-DOR.pdf|archive-date=5 July 2010}}</ref> This case shows the court's willingness to consider trade dress protection for a website, even though the court did not find protection in this case. However, the ''SG Services'' court did not look at the overall "look and feel" of the website, but rather, at specific characteristics (such as color) of the website that the plaintiff claimed were infringed.

Although the future of trade dress protection for websites is still very unclear, much thought has been given to this area and it will likely continue to be actively developing area for courts and litigants.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Xuan-Thao N. |last=Nguyen |title=Should it be a Free for All? The Challenge of Extending Trade Dress Protection to the Look and Feel of Web Sites in the Evolving Internet |volume=49 |journal=American University Law Review |issue=6 |pages=1233–1277 |year=2001 |url=http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/49/vol49-6_nguyen.pdf?rd=1 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090325123737/https://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/49/vol49-6_nguyen.pdf?rd=1 |archive-date=2009-03-25 }}</ref><ref>Scott D. Locke, Trade Dress in the Age of E-Commerce: The Challenge of Protecting the "Look and Feel" of Websites and Mobile Apps, 27 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 213 (2017). http://www.albanylawjournal.org/archives/pages/article-information.aspx?volume=27&issue=3&page=213</ref>