TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc." (2001)

Imgur

Bench/Jurisdiction:

Discussed the functionality doctrine in Trademark Law.

Parties Involved: The case was between TrafFix Devices Inc. (Plaintiff) and Marketing Displays Inc. (Defendant).
Product in Question: The dispute involved a design for a two-spring mechanism used in portable, wind-resistant sign stands.

Marketing Display, Inc., the plaintiff, held patents for a two-spring design used to stabilize traffic signs in strong winds.
After this patent expired, TrafFix,the defendant, started producing their own signs utilizing the same design. Against this the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging trade dress infringement based on the imitation of the distinctive design. So, the main question dealt with was: whether trade dress protection could be granted to a product that was previously covered by patent.

The Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that there can be no trademark protection for something that is functional because that would work as a detriment to competitors based on something other than reputation, which is the key consideration in trademark law.
Court noted that it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to establish that the characteristics for which protection is sought is not functional, as, general assumption would be, anything that was granted patent protection earlier.

The Lanham Act does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in creating a particular device; that is the purpose of the patent law and its period of exclusivity. The Lanham Act, furthermore, does not protect trade dress in a functional design simply.