1995 United States Supreme Court case
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. |
---|
|
Argued January 9, 1995 Decided March 28, 1995 |
---|
Full case name | Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. |
---|
Citations | 514 U.S. 159 (more)115 S. Ct. 1300; 131 L. Ed. 2d 248; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 2408; 63 U.S.L.W. 4227; 34 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1161; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2249; 95 Daily Journal DAR 3867; 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 653 |
---|
Case history |
---|
Prior | C.D. Cal. found for plaintiff, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21172; judgment set aside by the Ninth Circuit, 13 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1994), reversed |
---|
Holding |
---|
Under the Lanham Act, a color can be registered as a trademark. Individual colors, however, cannot be deemed "inherently distinctive," so the registrant must demonstrate that the color has acquired "secondary meaning" in consumers' minds as indicating the source of the registrant's goods. |
Court membership |
---|
- Chief Justice
- William Rehnquist
- Associate Justices
- John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer |
Case opinion |
---|
Majority | Breyer, joined by unanimous |
---|
Laws applied |
---|
Lanham Act |
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a color could meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act, provided that it has acquired secondary meaning in the market.
Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Qualitex Co.[1] had used a green-gold color for dry cleaning "press pads"[2] which it sold to dry cleaning firms to use in their presses. Defendant Jacobson Products Co. was a rival of Qualitex. In 1989, Jacobson began selling their own pads to dry cleaners which were a similar color to those of Qualitex. In response, Qualitex filed a lawsuit against Jacobson in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for unfair competition. In 1991, Qualitex registered the green-gold color of its pads with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark, and subsequently added a trademark infringement count to its lawsuit. The District Court found for Qualitex, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set aside the judgment, on the grounds that color alone could not be registered as a trademark.[3]
Decision
Justice Breyer, writing for a unanimous 9-0 court, overturned the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that the Lanham Act was very broad in its definition of what a trademark could be. The definition section of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, defines trademarks as including "any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof". Breyer reasoned that colors could constitute descriptive trademarks, because while colors do not automatically evoke a connection to any product by themselves, they could take on secondary meaning over time, in the course of use in the marketplace. In this way, a color could serve the chief purpose of trademarks, that of identifying the source of a particular product.
Breyer also determined that the functionality doctrine was no bar to the registration of the plaintiff's color as a trademark. He determined that a product feature is only functional "if it is essential to the purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article". 514 U.S. at 165.
Although sometimes color plays an important role (unrelated to source identification) in making a product more desirable, sometimes it does not. And, this latter fact—the fact that sometimes color is not essential to a product's use or purpose and does not affect cost or quality—indicates that the doctrine of "functionality" does not create an absolute bar to the use of color alone as a mark.[4]
The color in this case acted purely as a symbol, and served no other purpose. Jacobson argued that there are only a limited number of colors that could be used for the products at issue here, and that many colors are very similar looking, but Breyer dismissed this concern, saying that if the defendant’s concerns were proven to be valid, the functionality doctrine would then come into play. Breyer further held that a color could be trademarked separately from any trade dress protection.
See also
References
- ^ "Qualitex - World's Largest Manufacturers of Products for Dry Cleaners and the Garment Industry". www.qualitexco.com. Retrieved November 21, 2017.
- ^ "Qualitex - World's Largest Manufacturers of Products for Dry Cleaners and the Garment Industry - SUN GLOW® PRESS PADS". www.qualitexco.com. Retrieved November 21, 2017.
- ^ Qualitex Co., v. Jacobson Products Co., 13 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1994).
- ^ "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved November 21, 2017.
External links
- ^ Text of Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
Enumeration Clause of Section II |
---|
|
|
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III |
---|
|
|
Elections Clause of Section IV |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Dormant Commerce Clause | - Brown v. Maryland (1827)
- Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)
- Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
- Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
- Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)
- George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)
- Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)
- Edwards v. California (1941)
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)
- Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)
- Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)
- Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)
- National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)
- Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)
- Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)
- Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)
- Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)
- White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)
- South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)
- Maine v. Taylor (1986)
- Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)
- Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)
- Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)
- C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)
- West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)
- Granholm v. Heald (2005)
- United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)
- Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)
- Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
- Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)
- National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)
|
---|
Others | |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
Copyright Act of 1790 | |
---|
Patent Act of 1793 | |
---|
Patent infringement case law | |
---|
Patentability case law | |
---|
Copyright Act of 1831 | |
---|
Copyright Act of 1870 | |
---|
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 | |
---|
International Copyright Act of 1891 | |
---|
Copyright Act of 1909 | |
---|
Patent misuse case law | |
---|
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 | |
---|
Lanham Act | - Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)
- Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995)
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001)
- TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)
- Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014)
- Matal v. Tam (2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
- Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)
|
---|
Copyright Act of 1976 | - Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)
- Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985)
- Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989)
- Stewart v. Abend (1990)
- Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
- Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. (1996)
- Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. (1998)
- Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998)
- New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)
- Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
- MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010)
- Golan v. Holder (2012)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)
- American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)
- Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019)
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019)
- Allen v. Cooper (2020)
- Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)
|
---|
Other copyright cases | |
---|
Other patent cases | - Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916)
- United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)
- United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)
- Altvater v. Freeman (1943)
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)
- Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948)
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)
- Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)
- Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964)
- Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964)
- Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964)
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
- Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966)
- United States v. Adams (1966)
- Brenner v. Manson (1966)
- Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)
- Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
- Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
- United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)
- Dann v. Johnston (1976)
- Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976)
- Parker v. Flook (1978)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
- Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)
- Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)
- J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001)
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
- Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)
- Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)
- LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)
- Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007)
- Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008)
- Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011)
- Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011)
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011)
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)
- Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)
- Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)
- Gunn v. Minton (2013)
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)
- FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014)
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015)
- Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015)
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016)
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
- Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)
|
---|
Other trademark cases | |
---|
|
|
|
Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX |
---|
|
|
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX |
---|
|
|
|
|
Compact Clause of Section X |
---|
|
|