BETTERING THE AESTHETIC FUNCTIONALITY IN TRADEMARKS: REVIEWING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37591/sstbey23Keywords:
Aesthetic functionality, non-conventional trademarks, functionality doctrine, legislatively, consumerAbstract
This paper analyzes the doctrine of aesthetic functionality in trademark law, which is a contentious and unevenly enforced principle that dictates when a product's aesthetic attributes should forfeit trademark protection to maintain equitable competition. Aesthetic functionality is an extension of utilitarian functionality. It protects features that are valued for their visual or sensory appeal rather than their ability to identify the source. As trademarks have evolved to include unconventional forms such as colors, shapes, and scents, the doctrine's ambiguous and inconsistent application by courts has resulted in considerable legal uncertainty. The paper delineates the historical evolution of aesthetic functionality through a doctrinal and descriptive analysis of case laws and academic commentaries, assesses its theoretical underpinnings, and critically examines the principal judicial and scholarly initiatives aimed at refining its scope.
The paper, based on prominent scholars highlights the doctrine's primary deficiency as its lack of uniformity and coherence. It combines a number of proposed reforms, such as the traderight idea, consumer motivation tests, competitive need standards, cognitive functionality frameworks, and empirical market analyses, to create a composite framework for consistent use by the courts. This framework focuses on three main goals: keeping competition in the market, keeping the purpose of trademarks to identify sources, and encouraging new ideas that are both creative and useful. The study concludes that aesthetic functionality is an essential tool to prevent perpetual monopolies over ornamental features; however, it necessitates legislative clarification and empirical validation to guarantee coherence and predictability. In the end, the paper calls for a "multi-factor, evidence-based, and legislatively codified standard" that strikes a balance between competition, creativity, and consumer protection in modern trademark law.
References
R. G. Bone, Trademark Functionality Reexamined, 7(1) J. LEGAL ANAL. 183-246 (2015).
Margot E. Parmentor, Louboutins and Legal Loopholes: Aesthetic Functionality and Fashion, 40(4) PEPPERDINE L.REV. 1039-1102 (2013).
E. M. Harriman, Aesthetic functionality: the disarray among modern courts, 86(3) TRADEMARK REP. 276-303 (1996). See also, Xiaoren Wang, Aesthetic Functionality at a Crossroads: What a Troublesome Doctrine can learn from its past, 19(3) CHICAGO-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 359-372 (2020).
Justin Hughes, Cognitive and Aesthetic Functionality in Trademark Law, 36 CARDOZO L.REV. 1227 (2014).
N. Tal, Aesthetic Functionality: Trademark Law's Red Herring Doctrine, 22(1) TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 25-68 (2013).
F. I. Schechter, Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, 40 HARV.L.REV. 813 (1927).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.
Id. at 4.
Id.at 1.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1234 (4th ed. 1951) (defining “functional feature”).
Id.at 1.
In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., (1982) 671 F.2d 1332, (US).
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., (1982) 456 U.S. 844, (US).
Id.at 4.
Pagliero v. Wallace China, 198 F.2d 339 (9th Cir. 1952) (US).
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, 532 U.S. 23 (2001), (US).
A. L. Fletcher, Defensive Aesthetic Functionality: Deconstructing the Zombie, 101(6) TRADEMARK REP. 1687-1709 (2011).
Qualitex Co. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), (US).
Id.at 2.
Christina Farmer, Red in the Eye of the Beholder: The Case for Aesthetic Functionality, 28 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 777-804 (2013).
Id.at 3.
D. N. Clegg, Aesthetic Functionality Conundrum and Traderight: A Proposal for a Foster Home to an Orphan of Intellectual Property Laws, 89 IOWA L.Rev. (2003).
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000), (US).
Id.at 22
Jay Franco & Sons, Inc. v. Fanek, (2010) 615 F.3d 855 (US).
S. Michael & Jr. Mireles, Aesthetic Functionality, 21 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 155 (2013).
C. Buccafusco & M. A. Lemley, Functionality Screens, 103(7) VIRGINIA. L.Rev. 1293-1377 (2017).
Id. at 26.
Id. at 17.
Sarah Hopkins, Aesthetic functionality: Monster The Court Created But Could Not Destroy, 102(5) TRADEMARK REP. 1126-1167 (2012).
Id. at 22.
Id. at 22.
D.E. Pinover, Aesthetic functionality: the need for foreclosure of competition, 83(4) TRADEMARK REP 571-606 (1993).
Id. at 26.
Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc., 679 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2012), (US).
Id. at 20.
Fleischer Studios Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A. Inc., (2011) 654 F.3d 958, (US).
D. S. Cohn, Mere Ornamentation and Aesthetic Functionality: Causing Confusion in the Betty Boop Case, 101(4) TRADEMARK REP. 1218-1222 (2011).
Id.
Id. at 5.
Id. at 22.
Id. at 26.
M. A. Thurmon, The Rise and Fall of Trademark Law's Functionality Doctrine, 56(2) F.L.R. 243-372 (2004).
Id. at 30.
Allison Midei, Getting to functional: limiting the applicability of the trademark aesthetic functionality doctrine, 41(3) AIPLA Q.J. 467-510 (2013).
Id. at 4.
Brunswick Corporation v. British Seagull Ltd., (1994) 35 F.3d 1527, (US).
Annette Kur, Too pretty to protect? Trade mark law and the enigma of aesthetic functionality, MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW RESEARCH PAPER NO. 11-16 (2009).
Bang & Olufsen v. OHIM, (2011) Case T-508/08, (EU).
Benetton Group SpA v G-Star International BV, (2007) Case C-371/06, (EU).
M. Moore, Dressed for the trade in someone else's clothes: Replica guitars call for more functional application of the aesthetic functionality doctrine, 85(4) UMKC L.REV. 1055-1078 (2017).
Id. at 33.
A. J. Schultz, Looks Can Be Deceiving: Aesthetic Functionality in Louboutin and beyond. Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 15 TULANE J. TECH. INTELL. PROP. 261-292 (2012).
Xiaoren Wang, Aesthetic Functionality at a Crossroads: What a Troublesome Doctrine can learn from its past, 19(3) CHICAGO-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 359-372 (2020).
Mitchell M. Wong, Aesthetic Funtionality Doctrine and the Law of Trade-Dress Protection, 83(4) C.L.R. 1116-1168 (1998).
Id. at 5.
G.S. Lunney & Glynn S (Eds.), Research Handbook on the Law and Economics of Trademark Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023).
