532 U.S. 23 (2001) Cited 604 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the dual-spring design was not protectable because it had a purpose “beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by” the plaintiff
514 U.S. 159 (1995) Cited 577 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding companies may not "inhibit[] legitimate competition" by trademarking desirable features to "put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage"
In William R. Warner Co. v. Eli Lilly Co., 265 U.S. 526, 44 S.Ct. 615, 68 L.Ed. 1161 (1924), the Supreme Court refused to authorize exclusive rights in the brown color of a quinine preparation which was due to the presence of chocolate as a masking agent and suspension medium.
Holding that a consideration in determining whether a particular product feature is functional is the existence of "advertising materials in which the originator of the design touts the design's utilitarian advantages"
Holding that the color "pink" as a trademark for manufacturer's fibrous glass residential insulation was valid when the pink color gave "the public a reliable indication of source and thus facilitate[d] responsible marketplace competition."
Holding color black for outboard motors was functional because, while it had no utilitarian effect on the mechanical working of the engines, it nevertheless provided other identifiable competitive advantages, for example ease of coordination with a variety of boat colors and reduction in the apparent size of the engines
15 U.S.C. § 1052 Cited 1,611 times 274 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to refuse registration to a trademark that so resembles a registered mark "as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive"