Source: cases/15usc1125/f3d-927-486-bodum-v-a-top.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_927/0486_01/index.html
The Supreme Court has explained that " 'a product feature is functional,' and cannot serve as a trademark, 'if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.' " Qualitex , 514 U.S. at 165, 115 S.Ct. 1300 (quoting Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc. , 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982) ). Even if a claimed trade dress does not satisfy this first test, "it can still be functional if it is a 'competitive necessity,' that is, if its exclusive use 'would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.' " Arlington Specialties , 847 F.3d at 419 (quoting TrafFix Devices , 532 U.S. at 32-33, 121 S.Ct. 1255 ); see also Specialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., LP , 616 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 2010) (a design is functional where a product "looks the way it does in order to be a better [product], not in order to be a better way of identifying who made it").
Overall, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for the jury to have found Bodum's claimed trade dress was nonfunctional. We cannot say the jury was irrational to reach this conclusion, so we affirm the denial of A Top's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
A district court may exclude relevant evidence where its probative value is substantially outweighed by, for example, a risk of unfair prejudice or confusing the issues.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/927/0486-01 name Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated cite 927 F.3d 486 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit date 2019-06-12 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_927/0486_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl sha1=ce0e15d0c91a562d238b072227680c2394d6480f chars=31746 law 15usc1125 role applied posture Appeal from denial of Rule 50 judgment and Rule 59 new trial after trade-dress jury verdict; only nonfunctionality and patent-evidence exclusion reviewed. result claimant-won element nonfunctional-dress : satisfied [proved] variant product-design/ornamental-coffee-press theory Overall appearance, excluding functional carafe and plunger rule @8044..9018 | The Supreme Court has explained that " 'a product feature is functional,' and cannot serve as a trademark, 'if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.' " Qualitex , 514 U.S. at 165, 115 S.Ct. 1300 (quoting Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc. , 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982) ). Even if a claimed trade dress does not satisfy this first test, "it can still be functional if it is a 'competitive necessity,' that is, if its exclusive use 'would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.' " Arlington Specialties , 847 F.3d at 419 (quoting TrafFix Devices , 532 U.S. at 32-33, 121 S.Ct. 1255 ); see also Specialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., LP , 616 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 2010) (a design is functional where a product "looks the way it does in order to be a better [product], not in order to be a better way of identifying who made it"). fact @10677..10834 [supports] | Bodum does not claim a trade dress in the cylindrical carafe or the plunger, as it acknowledges those elements are functional for a French press coffeemaker. fact @12516..12757 [supports] | In contrast, Mr. Anders did not believe the particular C-shape of the Chambord's handle worked better than an alternatively shaped handle and, in fact, testified that he thought the C-shape was "not as ergonomically designed as it could be." fact @15800..15944 [supports] | More importantly, Bodum introduced evidence that both it and A Top sell French presses with alternative designs and made of different materials. fact @14330..14558 [cuts-against] | Indeed, Joergen Bodum, CEO of Bodum's parent company, testified regarding Chambord advertisements describing the product as "functional" and about an interview he gave in which he described Bodum's products as "function-driven." held @18513..18838 | Overall, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for the jury to have found Bodum's claimed trade dress was nonfunctional. We cannot say the jury was irrational to reach this conclusion, so we affirm the denial of A Top's motion for judgment as a matter of law. gloss The reviewed verdict concerns nonfunctionality of the particular overall design, not whether coffeemakers or handles perform functions. Other liability elements were outside the appellate challenge. element nonfunctional-dress : not-reached variant evidence/utility-patent-exclusion scope procedural theory Rule 403 exclusion of patent illustrations fact @25503..25621 [supports] | The patents A Top sought to introduce do not claim any of the features that comprise the claimed Chambord trade dress. rule @19090..19259 | A district court may exclude relevant evidence where its probative value is substantially outweighed by, for example, a risk of unfair prejudice or confusing the issues. held @25427..25502 | The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence. gloss Separate evidentiary ruling supporting denial of new trial; excluded patents are not substantive proof of nonfunctionality.