AND · 15usc1125:protected-mark
Protectability is doctrinal; ownership/enforceable licensing rights, priority, distinctiveness and territorial scope must be established. SportFuel states the trademark species test, not a universal requirement for every subsection (a) theory.
Exact element source
any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereofSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1125; Unicode character offsets [195:262] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0a5680239d11ae3247a99abab2344db45177346d2d2e3050e95c82fb39f3aca7.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Versatop Support Sys., LLC v. Ga. Expo, Inc. — 921 F.3d 1364 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| inherent-distinctiveness provisional; 0 observed cases | Arbitrary, fanciful or suggestive source identifiers may be inherently distinctive. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot |
| registration provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a federal registration establishes ownership and validity of the mark. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Niagara Bottling, LLC v. CC1 Ltd. — 381 F. Supp. 3d 175 (2019) · United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| secondary-meaning provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the mark or trade dress has acquired distinctiveness, including the rule that product design always requires it (Wal-Mart). | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (2). Excluded context examples:Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. — 529 U.S. 205 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · rule-announced/merits · not counted Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. — 532 U.S. 23 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Niagara Bottling, LLC v. CC1 Ltd. — 381 F. Supp. 3d 175 (2019) · United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a); party: CC1 Limited Partnership; count: Eco-Air trademark infringement; subject: party=CC1 Limited Partnership; count=Eco-Air trademark infringement District court treats the pleaded federal registrations as satisfying the protectability prong at the pleading stage. | federally registered word marks for a bottled-water bottle and package, registrations attached to the complaint | Plaintiff is the owner of federal trademark registrations for Eco-Air Bottle word mark in International Class 32 and Eco-Air Package work mark in International Cass 16 ("collectively "Eco-Air Marks"); along with common law rights ("Composite Marks").Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_381.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/381/0175-01; Unicode character offsets [545:795] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7987994b779dabc8433e7979b5759eb92bba76c36aa5a22dfe7670bfb0665ed3.Moreover, Plaintiff complies with registering the trademarks before the United States Patent Trademark Office.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_381.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/381/0175-01; Unicode character offsets [20633:20743] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7987994b779dabc8433e7979b5759eb92bba76c36aa5a22dfe7670bfb0665ed3.However, if the mark is registered, the first prong of a trademark infringement case is then satisfied.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_381.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/381/0175-01; Unicode character offsets [15686:15789] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7987994b779dabc8433e7979b5759eb92bba76c36aa5a22dfe7670bfb0665ed3.In the instant case, the Court finds the first prong has been satisfied by the federal trademark registration that entitles Plaintiff to the trademark rights.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_381.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/381/0175-01; Unicode character offsets [16250:16408] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7987994b779dabc8433e7979b5759eb92bba76c36aa5a22dfe7670bfb0665ed3. |
| Versatop Support Sys., LLC v. Ga. Expo, Inc. — 921 F.3d 1364 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded The case-specific ownership premise is conceded on appeal; the court does not newly analyze distinctiveness or priority. | ownership/uncontested-product-names | VersaTop states that since 2011 it has sold these systems with the trademarks PIPE & DRAPE 2.0™ and 2.0™.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1364-01; Unicode character offsets [1542:1647] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e097d77ff3e2b2660ec97b4240c13672eab0fc9d8f05781fdfaf1b120b8c1ec9.Nor does Georgia Expo "dispute VersaTop's ownership of the trademarks at issue."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_921.jsonl#/f3d/921/1364-01; Unicode character offsets [4623:4703] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e097d77ff3e2b2660ec97b4240c13672eab0fc9d8f05781fdfaf1b120b8c1ec9. |
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. — 529 U.S. 205 (2000) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — not reached (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits theory: Children clothing design, not product packaging; subject: theory=Children clothing design, not product packaging The facts identify the claimed design and copying, not evidence that source significance was proved. The Court rejects inherent distinctiveness as a route for product design; it does not hold that Samara lacks secondary meaning. IR protective OCR is preserved verbatim. | product-design/secondary-meaning-required | Its primary product is a line of spring/summer one-piece seersucker outfits decorated with appliques of hearts, flowers, fruits, and the like.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_529.jsonl#/us/529/0205-01; Unicode character offsets [408:550] (end exclusive); SHA-256 04d0a14e0adf40434cbe489319e3ffe940079e3cdafd4be9acddf124f2b21c49.Wal-Mart sent Judy-Philippine photographs of a number of garments from Samara’s line, on which Judy-Philippine’s garments were to be based; Judy-Philippine duly copied, with only minor modifications, 16 of Samara’s garments, many of which contained copyrighted elements.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_529.jsonl#/us/529/0205-01; Unicode character offsets [945:1215] (end exclusive); SHA-256 04d0a14e0adf40434cbe489319e3ffe940079e3cdafd4be9acddf124f2b21c49.We hold that, in an action for infringement of unregistered trade dress under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a product’s design is distinctive, and therefore protective, only upon a showing of secondary meaning.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_529.jsonl#/us/529/0205-01; Unicode character offsets [17416:17623] (end exclusive); SHA-256 04d0a14e0adf40434cbe489319e3ffe940079e3cdafd4be9acddf124f2b21c49.The judgment of the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_529.jsonl#/us/529/0205-01; Unicode character offsets [17624:17750] (end exclusive); SHA-256 04d0a14e0adf40434cbe489319e3ffe940079e3cdafd4be9acddf124f2b21c49. |
| Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. — 532 U.S. 23 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — not reached (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits theory: Source recognition does not cure functionality; subject: theory=Source recognition does not cure functionality Secondary meaning not resolved by this Court; the lower court decisions on it are not imported as appellate merits findings. | functional-design | Functionality having been established, whether MDI’s dual-spring design has acquired secondary meaning need not be considered.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_532.jsonl#/us/532/0023-01; Unicode character offsets [16826:16952] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e20ddab45d1c903de6daba9faefb48543deb0cd6d8418cfcb001b3aa2096317c. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
"To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers." CAE, Inc. , 267 F.3d at 673-74.
Sportfuel, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. — 932 F.3d 589 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
"To prevail on either claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) its mark is protectable and (2) the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers." CAE, Inc. , 267 F.3d at 673-74.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0589-01; Unicode character offsets [5934:6141] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6820bdcc4c8d1f7c57b328a6c51f8af1f265db990f6acb029ef1ed054bfa251.Protectability is doctrinal; ownership/enforceable licensing rights, priority, distinctiveness and territorial scope must be established. SportFuel states the trademark species test, not a universal requirement for every subsection (a) theory.
not-required
Federal registration as a categorical prerequisite to subsection (a) protection.
No source quotation recorded.