In In re Forney Industries, decided on April 8, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the "TTAB")—which had denied registration of Forney's multi-color product packaging mark—and held that "color marks can be inherently distinctive when used on product packaging, depending upon the character of the color design."
Facts
Forney uses its mark—consisting of "the color red fading into yellow in a gradient, with a horizontal black bar at the end of the gradient"—on packaging for welding and machining tools and accessories. The TTAB affirmed an examining attorney's denial of registration of the mark on the Principal Register because Forney did not provide proof of acquired distinctiveness.
The Federal Circuit determined that the TTAB erroneously interpreted three Supreme Court decisions—Two Pesos, Qualitex, and Wal-Mart v. Samara Bros.—in support of a faulty proposition that a claim to a particular color on product packaging may never be inherently distinctive without additional distinctive elements. The court highlighted the TTAB's failure to distinguish between product design marks (which are never inherently distinctive) and product packaging marks (which may be inherently distinctive).
The court explained that product packaging (i.e., a type of trade dress) may be inherently distinctive if it "'makes such an impression on consumers that they will assume' the trade dress is associated with a particular source" and declared that the TTAB must assess the Seabrook factors in making this determination.[1] Further, the court agreed with Forney that its "mark is not just a 'color mark,' but also a 'symbol'" because Forney's claimed mark consists of a particular combination and arrangement of colors, rather than a claim to all uses of those colors. Accordingly, the TTAB must make its determination "based on the overall impression created by both the colors employed and the pattern created by those colors."
Takeaway
Before this decision, many would have erred like the TTAB in thinking that the case law made it clear that colors alone can never be inherently distinctive. Now, trademark applicants with multi-color marks used on product packaging—that may be lacking proof of acquired distinctiveness—have a green light to protect their inherently distinctive arrangement of colors separately from words and designs.
[1] The Seabrook factors: "(1) whether the trade dress is a 'common' basic shape or design; (2) whether it is unique or unusual in the particular field; (3) whether it is a mere refinement of a commonly-adopted and well-known form of ornamentation for a particular class of goods viewed by the public as a dress or ornamentation for the goods; or . . . (4) whether it is capable of creating a commercial impression distinct from the accompanying words."
- Associate
Kurt has an aptitude for understanding his client's ideas and goals to overcome obstacles with creative solutions that maximize intellectual property value.
Kurt Prange is an intellectual property (IP) lawyer whose practice focuses on patents and trademarks. Kurt has developed an ...
About This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam