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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| acquired | Descriptive marks require secondary meaning; generic terms cannot be monopolized as marks. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| inherent | Arbitrary, fanciful or suggestive source identifiers may be inherently distinctive. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| ownership/uncontested-product-names | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/921/1364-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019 — satisfied | |
| product-design | Product-design trade dress requires secondary meaning; nonfunctionality is independently required. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| product-design/secondary-meaning-required | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/529/0205-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 — rule-announced/merits | |
| secondary-meaning/functional-design | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/532/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/921/1364-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019 | 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. |
| /us/529/0205-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 | 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. |
| /us/532/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 | 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. | secondary-meaning/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.
/f3d/932/0589-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019
"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.