ÿWPCC- ²¢4@ªò2?ûñ–Zo²ú=Ó~ú<àâyýqŠ žøÓ¸*KP’è>êh£Œå6Fþw}ª{™Ž» ÁâÅÎ|ù‡\¥šÈ°=~%ò*Ù EB›¬aNÙ'B€lló~#xBœR…v~³±‡j¸ªv!‰—îµetÆÕ"“Å ›·iq<_mÄÖfù´Œ“ŪÑR9É6þÛKYUvqµ7¾f©KAv:£š¡º(.¨¸½Qm%gi-„©RùSjm ¦Zį,´0Ëܯ%šÜ6¨ø?cÚœ_prÖ¿™0!4P“üG ÛH|·×G‡,ÖNÜÚ#“Á&¿¾ð&A®e4>Ù`~,ºÒ ÿZ\èñi±ddv»Ç(ÕßÇsιAÈÞ…„r¿ð@,¾UCzòœ8î?\×5hæE1/ŸÔ}å'U~:) ¹ŒiŸ}ÜB±¾ÚK‡¯Kÿ68ùÝd4zÑË;ýUG!›kš Ž-)ËP6`Kÿ©Ö½fZŒƒÂúŠzì#IÙ”%³¶ÂXYÅR¹Ãž{cÞt(ð“Îצ ¡Ó¡¾üwm4±çˆUÏi‚ÁƒR5m‹G¼âJoÉ™)†Q¶CŸóUö¦<¹º43S…Ó“Jˆ¥P‚©Ò¸/ô×Zì# üUN %U 0([Nƒ^ …w@‘4Ñå mç 0lþ 0Dj ^ ® ¹º 7s 0Tª£þ§¡­HÍõÂQs`ÉÓvœHãZ™=ÖÝWˆ4&¼Áâµ£"iX#Á%X@&”˜(,)‹¼)ŽG*”Õ*‹i+&ô+,(",",",&J,J,J,J,J,J,J,J,Hp,p,p,H¸,&--------------------------- B&-#|xf˜\\750-FPS2\750_10_IPD01_HP4050WINSPOOLÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0!(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡hŽS,  QRESETEUVDW`cfx<“x<“ê:i¢Ø+00$ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ((3þÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóów…S,  ¯Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€Professor,€University€of€Baltimore€School€of€Law,€Baltimore,€Maryland;€currentlyÐ ° ÐABA,€€Section€of€IP€Law€liaison€to€the€Section€on€International€Law,€United€NationsÏCoordinating€Committee.;€former€chairs,€ABA,€Section€of€€IP€Law€Committee€412€(IndustrialÏDesigns)€and€Special€Committee€351€(Hague€Agreement);€patent€attorney. -Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€This€paper€will€not€review€in€detail€the€recent€development€in€U.€S.€trade€dress€caseÐ û Ðlaw.€€Reference€is€made€to€a€recent€article,€found€in€Appendix€A,€on€this€subject€published€byÏthis€author€that€will€be€summarized€in€this€paper,€William€T.€Fryer,€III,€òòTrademark€ProductÐ ÓØ ÐAppearance€Features,€United€States€and€Foreign€Protection€Evolution:€A€Need€for€ClarificationÏand€Harmonizationóó,€34€John€Marshall€Law€Review€947„971€(2001).€€€The€John€Marshall€LawÐ «° ÐReview€€article€also€introduces€some€of€the€international€comparative€analysis€that€will€beÏsupplemented€in€this€paper,€and€fundamental€concepts€that€should€be€reviewed€for€usefulÏbackground€on€this€paper.€€(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ ™Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.òò€Seeóó€Two€Pesos,€Inc.€v.€Taco€Cabana,€Inc.,€505€U.S.€763€(1992). Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€òòSeeóó€Qualitex€Co.€v.€Jacobson€Prods€Co.,€Inc.,€514€U.S.€159€(1995). £Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€òòSeeóó€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Samara€Brothers,€Inc.,€529€U.S.€205€(2000). ÃÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€òòSeeóó€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€Devices€Inc.€v.€Marketing€Displays.,€121€S.€Ct.€1255€(2001). …Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòSee€supraóó€note€2,€Fryer,€at€957,€962„964. Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€33€International€Legal€Materials€Journal€1,€83„11(1994).€€The€TRIPS€text€can€be€foundÐ û Ðon€the€World€Trade€Organization€(WTO)€web€site,€Ô4‚2Ý ´ÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôhttp://www.wto.orgÔ6ïÔÝ‚ÍOƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ô1Ô€(Site€Index€ð"ð>Ð çì ÐIntellectual€Property),€site€last€visited€Feb.€18,€2002. iÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€Art.€15€(1),€TRIPS. ¿Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€Community€Trademark€Regulation€text€available€on€the€web€site€of€the€EU€Office€ofÐ û ÐTrade€Marks€and€Designs:€Ô4‚!Ý  ÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôhttp://oami.eu.intÔ6ÖÔÝ‚ÍOêƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý pÔ€(Legal€Aspects),€site€last€visited€Feb.€18,€2002. lÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòProctor€&€Gambleóó,€Case€C„383/99P€(April€2001),€text€available€on€the€EU€web€site:Ð û ÐÔ4‚Ý °ÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôóóhttp://europa.eu.int/geninfo/info„Ô_Ôen.htmÔ_ÔòòÔ6ÃÔÝ‚ÍO׃ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý üÔ€(Ô_ÔEURÔ_Ô„LEX€„€European€Union€Law€ð"ð>€Case€Law€„„„„„>Ð çì ÐCase€Law€ð"ð>€Case€Law€Since€1997€(CURIA),€site€last€visited€Feb.€18,€2002..http://europa.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin ÙÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòId.€€óóat€paragraph€5€(references€to€statements€in€the€EU€court€cases€will€be€to€theÐ û Ðnumbered€paragraphs). Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€Community€Trademark€Regulations,€text€on€the€EU€Office€of€Trade€Marks€andÐ û ÐDesigns€web€site:€Ô4‚-Ý P ÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôhttp://oami.eu.intÔ6ÇÔÝ‚ÍOÛƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ¨ Ô€(legal€Aspects). wÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôòò.€€See€infraóó€notes€20€and€23. ÓÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòSee€supraóó€note€11,€para€81;€òòSee€supra€óónote€10,€Community€Trademark€Regulation,€art.Ð û Ð7(1)(c). ~Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€See€òòWindsurfingóó€Joint€Cases€C„108/97€and€C„109/97€(May€4,€1999),€text€available€onÐ û Ðthe€EU€web€site:€Ô4‚:Ý  ÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôóóhttp://europa.eu.int/geninfo/info„Ô_Ôen.htmÔ_ÔòòÔ6ÕÔÝ‚ÍOéƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý \Ô€(Ô_ÔEURÔ_Ô„LEX€„€European€Union€Law€ð"ð>Ð çì ÐCase€Law€„„„„„>€Case€Law€ð"ð>€Case€Law€Since€1997€(CURIA),€site€last€visited€Feb.€18,€2002..http://oami.eu.int ·Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€First€Council€Directive€on€Trademarks,€89/104/Ô_ÔECCÔ_Ô€of€the€Council,€of€21€DecemberÐ û Ð1988€to€approximate€the€laws€of€the€member€States€Relating€to€Trade€Marks.,€text€available€onÏweb€site€of€the€Office€of€Harmonization€in€the€Internal€Market,€on€web€site€of€the€Office€of€theÏEuropean€Union€Trade€Marks€and€Designs,€Ô4‚/Ý dÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôóóhttp://oami.eu.intòò,Ô6ÃÔÝ‚ÍO׃ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ðÔ€site€last€visited€Feb.€18,€2002.Ð ¿Ä Ð «Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòSee€supraóó€note€17,€òòÔ_ÔWindsurfingÔ_Ôóó,€par.€54. _Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€Philips,€Case€C„299/99€(Jan.€23,€2001),€text€available€on€the€EU€web€site:Ð û ÐÔ4‚=Ý °ÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôóóhttp://europa.eu.int/geninfo/info„Ô_Ôen.htmÔ_ÔòòÔ6¶ÔÝ‚ÍOʃÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý üøÔ€(Ô_ÔEURÔ_Ô„LEX€„€European€Union€Law€ð"ð>€Case€Law€„„„„„>Ð çì ÐCase€Law€ð"ð>€Case€Law€Since€1997€(CURIA),€site€last€visited€Feb.€18,€2002.. uÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòId.€óó€Philips€at€para.€8. NÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòSeeóó,€for€example,€òòProcter€&€Gambleóó,€Case€T„129/00€(Sept.€19,€2001),€text€on€EUÐ û ÐOffice€of€Trade€Marks€and€Designs€web€site€Ô4‚>Ý ”ÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôóóhttp://òòoami.eu.intÔ6ñÔÝ‚ÍOƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ì3Ô€(Site€Map€ð"ð>€Legal€Aspects€ð"ð>Ð çì ÐCase„Law€of€the€Court€of€First€Instance€of€the€European€Communities),€site€last€visited€Feb.€18,Ï2002.€ ŠÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòSee€supra€óónote€20,€€òòPhilipsóó€,€para€41.€ †Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòSee€supra€óónote€2,€Fryer,€954„957.€958„962. Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€See€supra€notes€3„8€and€accompanying€text. „Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€See€òòWindsurfingóó€supra€note€16,€par.€54. ŠÝ ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€òòSee€supra€óónote€19,€€òòPhilipsóó€,€para€41.€ Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô.€€See€supra€notes€3„7€and€accompanying€text.http://oami.eu.int http://oami.eu.int,http://www.wto.orghttp://europa.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-binhttp://europa.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-binhttp://oami.eu.int dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÌÌÓ  ÓÔ‡îèsîXXÔÌÌAMERICAN€BAR€ASSOCIATIONÌSECTION€OF€INTELLECTUAL€PROPERTY€LAWÌÌÌÌÌSPRING€Ô_ÔCLEÔ_Ô,€WASHINGTON.€D.€C.ÌAPRIL€12,€2002ÌÌÌÌÌÌWilliam€T.€Fryer,€III׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Â ÐÔ#†XuEXîîès9#ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ‡„8Á„XXuEÔTrade€Dress€Protection:€U.€S.€and€International€Developments€„Ð pÀ ÐThe€Prospects€for€Global€HarmonizationÔ#†XuEX„„8Á”#ÔÐ  Ð  ÐÓ-ÓÑû°ÑÔ‡îèsîXXuEÔIntroduction.Ô#†XuEXîîès‚#Ô€€Trade€dress€protection€is€a€lively€topic€now,€both€in€the€U.€S.,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€the€law€ofÐ û Ðother€countries,€in€new€treaties€and€in€regional€agreements.€€The€primary€focus€of€this€paper€is€toÏreview€recent€developments€in€the€European€Union€(EU)€on€product€configuration€protection€andÏcompare€this€EU€law€with€U.€S.€trade€dress€protection€law.€€One€question€asked€is€whether€U.€S.Ïlaw€is€headed€in€a€direction€that€facilitates€global€harmonization€of€trade€dress€law€andÏeffectively€protects€U.€S.€domestic€and€global€commercial€interest.€€€This€review€concludes€thatÏU.€S.€law€has€been€clarified€significantly,€but€it€needs€to€return€to€basic€trademark€principles€onÏwhen€trade€dress€can€be€protected.€€This€situation€should€force€a€reevaluation€of€the€Wal„MartÏcase€by€U.€S.€courts€or€legislation€to€clarify€the€law.Ìà  àÌÔ‡îèsîXXuEÔReview€of€Trade€Dress€U.€S.€Case€Law.Ô#†XuEXîîèsn#Ô€€It€is€apparent€that€U.€S.€trade€dress€law€hasÐ mr  Ðchanged€significantly€after€a€recent€series€of€the€U.€S.€Supreme€Court€cases:€Two€òòPesosóó׃ð×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,Ð “˜  ÐòòÔ_ÔQualitexÔ_Ôóó׃¤ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€òòWal„martóó׃X ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€òòÔ_ÔTrafFixÔ_ÔóóÔ_Ô׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô.€€€The€òòTwo€Pesos€óócase€established€that€federal€unregisteredÐ „  Ðtrade€dress€protection€can€be€based€on€the€inherent€distinctiveness€of€a€restaurant€interior€design.€€ÏThe€òòÔ_ÔQualitexÔ_Ôóó€case€decided€that€color€may€be€a€mark,€in€a€case€where€there€was€secondaryÐ W\  Ðmeaning€for€a€multi„colored€cover€placed€on€laundry€presses.€€The€òòWal„Mart€óócase€held€that€aÐ CH Ðdress€design€was€not€inherently€distinctive,€and€made€an€unneeded€pronouncement€that€a€productÏconfiguration€could€not€be€protected€without€secondary€meaning,€while€packaging€may€beÏinherently€distinctive.€€The€òòWal„Mart€óócase€should€me€limited€to€its€facts,€where€secondaryÐ   Ðmeaning€was€not€an€issue,€and€the€presumption€of€aesthetic€functionality€prevented€a€finding€onÏinherently€distinctiveness€or€precluded€protection€irrespective€of€trademark€distinctiveness.׃(À×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ ßä Ðlatest€case,€òòÔ_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ôóó,€clarified€the€standard€applied€to€determine€trade€mark€functionality€and€theÐ ËÐ Ðrelation€between€product€configuration€marks€and€utility€patents.€€It€held€that€a€strict€standard€forÏâ âdistinctiveness€should€apply€to€product€configurations€and€functionality€exclusion€could€not€beÐ £¨ ÐÔ_Ôavoided€merely€by€there€being€other€embodiments€to€carry€out€a€productððs€function.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð û Ðâ ââ âà  àThese€U.€S.€development€are€closely€related€to€international€trade€dress€law,€and€aÏcomparison€with€recent€European€Union€case€law€will€evidence€a€movement€toward€commonÏstandards€on€several€principles€and€some€divergence€in€the€U.€S.€that€needs€to€be€corrected.ÌÌÔ‡îkÜîXX¦ÔInternational€Trade€Dress€Protection€Developments.€€Ô#†X¦XîîkÜò#ÔTrade€dress€protection€inÐ — œ Ðother€countries€is€expanding,€primarily€due€the€recent€approval€of€the€General€Agreement€onÏTariffs€and€Trade€„€TRIPS€provisions€(TRIPS).׃|×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€basic€trademark€system€was€mandated€byÐ « ° ÐTRIPS€in€each€member€country,€and€these€requirement€included€protection€of€any€ð ðsignðð€thatÏfunctioned€as€a.€mark׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Member€countries€have€properly€interpreted€€TRIPS€to€require€tradeÐ ƒ ˆ  Ðdress€protection,€including€product€shape€protection.€€TRIPS€did€not€state€how€a€country€wouldÏdetermine€the€standards€that€should€apply€to€this€protection.€€The€generally€accepted€view€is€thatÏdistinctiveness€is€required€and€that€protection€will€not€apply€to€primarily€functional€productÏconfigurations,€a€topic€that€is€dealt€with€under€the€laws€of€each€country.Ìà  àThe€EU€Community€Trademark€Regulations׃¼×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€set€up€a€registration€system€that€has€had€aÐ $  Ðmajor€impact€on€international€development€of€trademark€protection.€€EU€case€law€recently€hasÏsettled€several€important€principles,€including€standards€to€determine€what€is€distinctive€andÏwhether€a€product€shape€is€primarily€functional.€€In€particular,€it€is€clear€that€some€productÏconfigurations€can€be€inherently€distinctive,€and€the€tests€for€functionality€and€distinctiveness€willÏapplied€strictly€before€a€product€shape€mark€is€approved.€€Several€EU€cases€will€be€described€toÏillustrate€these€and€other€points.ÌÌA.€€òòProcter€&€Gamble€v.€Office€for€Harmonization€in€the€Internal€Marketóó.€(Procter€&€GambleÐ „ ÐI)׃\ ×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€case€was€the€first€one€on€appeal€to€the€European€Court€of€Justice€from€the€Office€of€theÐ kp ÐEurpean€Union€Trade€Marks€and€Designs€that€registers€the€Community€Trademark.€€It€involvedÏthe€mark€ð ðBaby„Dryðð€for€diapers.€€The€Court€immediately€addressed€the€need€for€uniformity€inÏEU€trademark€law€and€around€the€world.׃è ×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€This€case€is€a€textbook€in€EU€Community€trademarkÐ /4 Ðlaw€and€practice.€€The€Community€Trademark€Regulations׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€set€forth€the€basic€trademarkÐ û Ðprinciples€on€distinctiveness..€€The€Office€of€Harmonization€in€the€Internal€Market€TrademarkÏBoard€of€Appeals€had€refused€registration€of€this€phrase,€as€being€common€words€that€should€notÏhave€use€restricted€by€trademark€protection.€€After€a€thorough€analysis,€the€Court€applied€theÏprinciple€found€in€the€Community€Trademark€Regulation€that€words€in€the€public€domain€may€beÏmarks€if€their€use€is€not€exclusively€descriptive.׃h×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€It€held€the€Baby€Dry€phrase€used€words€thatÐ — œ Ðmust€be€freely€available€for€public€use,€individually,€but€the€use€in€combination€was€not€commonÏterminology€to€describe€a€diaper.€€The€Court€found€the€mark€was€distinctive€and€reversed€theÏlower€courtððs€decision.Ìà  àIn€broader€perspective,€this€case€offered€a€framework€for€analyzing€product€shapes€forÏtrademark€protection,€and€in€particular€the€issue€of€distinctiveness.€€The€Community€TrademarkÏRegulations€specifically€mentioned€the€protection€of€ð ðproduct€shapeðð.€€The€principle€of€inherentlyÏdistinctiveness€could€be€applied€to€a€product€shape.€€Other€EU€cases€addressed€the€product€shapeÏsettings.׃×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ÷ü  ÐÌB.€€òòWindsurfing€Chiemsee€Produktions„€und€Vertriebs€GmbH€(WSC).óó׃ ¼×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€this€European€CourtÐ ÏÔ  Ðof€Justice€case,€the€Court€interpreted€the€EU€First€Council€Directive€on€trademarks.׃"H ×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€caseÐ »À Ðguided€EU€countries€on€how€to€amend€their€trademark€laws€to€comply€with€the€Directive.€€TheÏCourt€held€that€geographic€indications€could€be€a€trademark€after€use€as€a€mark,€unless€there€wasÏassociation€by€the€public€of€the€location€with€the€product.ñWñ׃#¬×ñWññWñ׃*¬×ñWñÝ ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Court€rejected€following€a€policyÐ „ Ðto€keep€all€geographic€indications€available€for€later€use€for€non„trademark€purposes.€€This€caseÏshowed€the€Court€carefully€preserved€basic€trademark€principles,€and€that€when€product€shapeÏwould€come€up€for€review€the€same€approach€would€be€used€without€special€policy€exceptions.Ìâ âÐ /4 ÐC.òò€€Philips€Electronics€NV€v.€Remington€Consumer€Products€Limitedóó.׃$×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€European€Court€ofÐ û Ðâ âJustice€in€this€case€provided€guidance€under€the€EU€Community€Trademark€Directive€for€a€UKÏcourt.€€The€alleged€mark€was€the€shape€of€an€electric€shaver€head.€€Philips€had€extensive€use€ofÏthis€product.€€The€UK€lower€court€had€held€the€shaver€head€was€ð ðdevoid€of€any€distinctiveÏcharacterðð׃%T×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€The€European€Court€of€Justice€answered€several€questions€that€clarified€theÐ «° ÐCommunity€Trademark€Directive€on€important€trademark€law€points.€€The€questions€went€to€theÏheart€of€the€Community€Trademark€Law,€and€they€were€so€precisely€worded€that€only€by€quotingÏthem€can€the€full€impact€of€the€case€be€appreciated:ÌÌà0  àðð1.€€Is€there€a€category€of€marks€which€is€not€excluded€from€registration€by€Article€3(1)(b)Ïto€(d)€and€Article€3(3)€of€the€Council€Directive€89/104/EEC€(The€Directive),€which€isÏnone€the€less€excluded€from€registration€by€Article€3(1)(a)€of€the€Directive€(as€beingÏincapable€of€distinguishing€the€goods€of€he€proprietor€from€those€of€other€undertakings)?Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à2.€€Is€the€shape€(or€part€of€the€shape)€of€an€article€(being€the€article€in€respect€of€which€theÏsign€is€registered)€only€capable€of€distinguishing€for€the€purposes€of€Article€2€if€it€containsÏsome€capricious€addition€(being€an€embellishment€which€has€no€functional€purpose€to€theÏshape€of€the€article?Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à3.€€Where€a€trader€has€been€the€only€supplier€of€a€particular€goods€to€the€market,€isÏextensive€use€of€a€sign,€which€consists€of€the€shape€(or€part€of€the€shape)€of€those€goodsÏand€which€does€not€include€any€capricious€addition,€sufficient€to€give€the€sign€a€distinctiveÏcharacter€for€the€purpose€of€Article€3(3)€in€circumstances€where€as€a€result€of€that€use€aÏsubstantial€proportion€of€the€relevant€trade€and€publicÐ (#(# ÐÌà0  à(i)€€€associate€the€shape€with€that€trader€and€no€other€undertaking;Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à(ii)€believe€the€goods€of€that€shape€come€from€that€trader,€absent€a€statement€to€theÏcontrary?Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à4.€€(i)€Can€the€restriction€imposed€by€the€words€if€it€consists€exclusively€of€the€shape€ofÏgoods€which€is€necessary€to€achieve€a€technical€result€appearing€in€Article€3(1)(e)(ii)€beÏovercome€by€establishing€that€there€are€other€shapes€which€can€obtain€the€same€technicalÏresult€orÐ (#(# ÐÌà0  à(ii)€is€the€shape€unregistrable€by€virtue€thereof€if€it€is€shown€that€the€essential€features€ofÏthe€shape€are€attributable€only€to€the€technical€result€orÐ (#(# ÐÔ_ÔÐ '"% Ðà0  à(iii)€is€some€other€and,€if€so,€what€test€appropriate€for€determining€whether€the€restrictionsÏapplies?Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à5.€€Article€3(1)(c)€of€the€Directive€applies€to€trade€marks€which€consist€òòexclusivelyóó€ofÐ ¿Ä Ðsigns€or€indications€which€may€serve,€in€trade,€to€designate€the€kind,€quality,€quantity,Ïintended€purpose€...€of€the€goods€or€service.€€Article€6(1)(b)€of€the€Directive€applies€to€theÏuse€by€a€third€party€of€indications€concerning€the€kind,€quality,€quantity,€intended€purposeÏ...€of€goods€or€services.€€The€word€òòexclusivelyóó€thus€appears€in€Article€3(1)(c)€and€isÐ o t Ðomitted€in€Article€6(1)(b)€of€the€Directive.€€On€a€proper€interpretation€of€the€Directive,Ïdoes€this€omission€mean€that,€even€if€a€mark€consisting€of€the€shape€of€goods€is€validlyÏregistered,€it€is€not€infringed€by€virtue€of€Article€6(1)(b)€in€circumstances€whereÐ (#(# ÐÌà0  à(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€the€use€of€the€shape€of€goods€complained€of€is€and€would€be€taken€as€an€indication€asÏto€the€kind€of€goods€or€the€intended€purpose€thereof€andÐ (#(# ÐÌà0  à(ii)€a€substantial€proportion€of€the€relevant€trade€and€public€believe€that€goods€of€thatÏshape€come€from€the€trade€mark€proprietor,€absent€a€statement€to€the€contrary?Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à6.€€Does€the€exclusive€right€granted€by€Article€5(1)€extended€to€enable€the€proprietor€toÏprevent€third€parties€using€identical€or€similar€signs€in€circumstances€where€that€use€wasÏnot€such€as€to€indicate€origin€or€is€it€limited€so€as€to€prevent€only€use€which€wholly€or€inÏpart€does€indicate€origin?Ð (#(# ÐÌà0  à7.€€Is€use€of€an€allegedly€infringing€shape€of€goods,€which€is€and€would€be€seen€as€anÏindication€as€to€the€kind€of€goods€or€the€intended€purpose€thereof,€none€the€less€such€as€toÏindicate€origin€if€a€substantial€proportion€of€the€relevant€trade€and€public€believe€thatÏgoods€of€the€shape€complained€of€come€from€the€trade€mark€proprietor,€absent€aÏstatement€to€the€contrary.ððÐ (#(# ÐÌThe€Court€went€right€to€the€main€issue€of€whether€a€product€shape€that€is€technically€essential€canÏstill€be€protected€by€trademark€law€when€there€are€alternative€embodiments€that€have€the€sameÏfunction.€€The€Court€held€that€trademark€protection€would€be€denied€under€these€circumstances.€ÏThe€product€shape€must€stand€on€its€own€for€protection.ñ`ñ׃'×ñ`ññ`ñ׃+×ñ`ñÝ ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Without€trademark€distinctive€featuresÐ {"€  Ðapart€from€the€technically€essential€features€there€is€no€trademark€protection.€Ìà  àThe€Court€in€the€òòPhilipsóó€case€clarified€the€relation€between€industrial€design€registration€inÐ S$X" Ðthe€Community€Design€Directive€and€Regulation€(design€patent).€€It€stated€that€industrial€designsÏregistration€protection€is€available€where€the€product€shape€technically€essential€function€can€beÏperformed€by€alternative€shapes.€€Trademark€protection€is€determined€by€a€strict€test€of€whetherÏtrademark€distinctive€features€other€than€a€technically€essential€function€a€€product€shape€areÏpresent.€€ÌÌD.€€òòProcter€&€Gamble€Company€v.€Office€for€Ô_ÔHarmonisationÔ_Ô€in€the€Internal€Market€(TradeÐ Ç*Ì%) ÐÔ_ÔMarks€and€Designs€(OHIM)(óóProcter€&€Gamble€II)òò.óó׃&×Ý ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Recently€in€a€series€of€cases€on€applicationsÐ û Ðfor€registration€of€Community€Trademarks€by€Procter€&€Gamble€reaffirmed€the€European€CourtÏof€First€Instance€affirmed€the€basic€trademark€principle€that€there€must€be€distinctiveness€forÏproduct€shape€protection.€€òòóóThe€products€in€these€cases€were€soap€tablets.€€The€Court€held€thatÐ ¿Ä Ðthese€products€were€not€distinctive.€The€shape€features€were€not€likely€to€be€recognized€asÏtrademark€distinguishing€features.€€Also,€many€of€the€features€were€dictated€by€the€technicalÏfunction€for€the€product.€€ÌÌÔ‡îkÜîXX¦ÔInternational€Harmonization€of€Global€Trademark€Law€for€Product€ShapeÐ [ ` ÐProtection.Ô#†X¦XîîkÜ–@#Ô€€With€this€case€law€clarification€of€the€framework€for€EU€Community€Trademark,Ð ƒ ˆ  ÐEU€trademark€law€on€product€shape€protection€is€very€close€to,€if€not€the€same€as€U.€S.€law,€withÏat€least€one€major€exception.ñcñ׃)@×ñcññcñ׃,@×ñcñÝ ƒ %ÃÝòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×.€€€The€òòWal„Mart€óócase€may€be€in€conflict€with€the€EU€law€ñTññMñwhichñMññTññUñunderÐ —œ  ÐwhichñUññVññOñ€ñOññQñpermitsñQññVññRññQñ€ñQññRññVñ€the€possibility€ñVññSñexists€ñSññVñthat€ñVñ€product€shape€may€be€inherently€distinctive.€€If€the€òòWal„Martóó€case€is€interpreted€to€requiredÐ ƒˆ  Ðsecondary€meaning€for€all€product€shapes€to€be€a€mark,€then€there€is€a€conflict€with€EUÏCommunity€Trademark€law.€€This€fact€is€another€reason€to€carefully€analyze€the€Wal„MartÏdecision€and€consider€legislative€clarification.€ÌÌÔ‡îkÜîXX¦ÔFuture€for€Trademark€Product€Shape€Ô#†X¦XîîkÜíD#ÔÔ‡îkÜîXX¦ÔProtection.Ô#†X¦XîîkÜRE#Ô€€The€future€for€internationalÐ $ Ðtrademark€protection€of€product€shape€looks€bright.€€The€TRIPS€provisions€on€trademarks€haveÏhelped€expand€foreign€trademark€laws€to€protect€product€shape.€€The€EU€Community€TrademarkÏevolution€has€accelerated€this€movement,€with€a€sound€and€balanced€approach.€€In€the€U.S.€majorÏcourt€cases€have€clarified€several€basic€trademark€law€principles€on€product€shape€protection,€butÏthe€path€is€not€yet€clear€for€global€harmonization,€due€to€the€òòWal„Mart€óócase,€until€it€is€put€inÐ ÷ü Ðproper€perspective,€or€legislative€clarification€occurs.à p àÐ ãè ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ_ÔÐ ß&ä!$ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌÓ  ÓAPPENDIX€AÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€William€T.€Fryer,€III€òòÐ [ ` ÐÌóóÓ¸HÓÔ‡îkÜîXX¦ÔTrademark€Product€Appearance€Features,€United€States€and€ForeignÐ 38  ÐProtection€Evolution:€A€Need€for€Clarification€and€Harmonization,€Ô#†X¦XîîkÜBI#ÔÐ [`  ÐÓGÓÌÓ0JÓÓ  Ó34€John€Marshall€Law€Review€947„971€(2001).ÌÌÌñfñComputer€File:€abaclet1.02.wpdñfñÌÓQJÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ  kp Ѐ€Appendix€AÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€34€J.€Marshall€L.€Rev.€947,€*ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Copyright€(c)€2001€The€John€Marshall€Law€SchoolÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€The€John€Marshall€Law€ReviewÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Summer,€2001ÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€34€J.€Marshall€L.€Rev.€947ÌÌÌARTICLE:€TRADEMARK€PRODUCT€APPEARANCE€FEATURES,€UNITED€STATES€ANDÏFOREIGN€PROTECTION€EVOLUTION:€A€NEED€FOR€CLARIFICATION€ANDÏHARMONIZATIONÌÌWilliam€T.€Fryer,€III*ÌÌÌ*€Professor,€University€of€Baltimore€School€of€Law.ÌÌÌTEXT:Ì€[*948]ÌÌINTRODUCTIONÌÌTrademark€law€has€recently€undergone€a€significant€evolution€bothÌnationally€and€internationally.€In€the€United€States€this€change€resultedÌfrom€fundamental€case€law€developments,€while€the€creation€andÌestablishment€of€international€agreements€sparked€the€internationalÌevolution.€Trade€dress€protection€also€experienced€significant€change,€bothÌin€the€United€States€and€internationally.€This€Article€focuses€on€theÌ"product€appearance€features"€aspect€of€trade€dress€protection.ÌÌTrade€dress€includes€both€the€product's€packaging€and€the€product'sÌindependent€appearance,€exemplified€by€the€customized€design€of€theÌpackaging€juxtaposed€with€the€product's€appearance€and€surface€designs.€TheÌline€between€packaging€and€product€appearance€features€is€not€easily€drawn.Ì1€For€example,€while€a€bottle€is€itself€a€product€by€way€of€functioning€asÌa€container,€it€could€also€be€construed,€for€trade€dress€purposes,€as€aÌ"package"€for€perfume€or€liquor.ÌÌNew€terms,€concepts,€and€issues€surfaced€in€product€appearance€trademarkÌprotection,€which€resulted€in€a€general€change€in€the€direction€ofÐ ‹-(, ÐÔ_Ôintellectual€property€law.€Questions€arise€concerning€the€propriety€ofÌusing€trademark€protection€alone,€or€using€trademark€law€in€combinationÌwith€a€design€patent€on€the€same€product€appearance.€These€questions€demandÌan€understanding€of€the€relationship€between€trademark€law€and€€[*949]Ìother€fields€of€intellectual€property,€particularly€patent€law€andÌespecially€utility€and€design€patents.€Another€related€issue€is€whetherÌprotection€arises€at€the€time€of€product€introduction,€as€would€be€the€caseÌif€inherently€distinctive€product€appearance€features€receive€protection,Ìor€whether€product€appearance€features€must€acquire€secondary€meaningÌwithin€the€traditional€parameters€of€trademark€protection.ÌÌWhile€lawyers€and€judges€review€the€legal€issues,€the€commercial€world,Ìprimarily€industrial€designers,€continues€to€create€several€varieties€ofÌproduct€appearance€features€in€an€effort€to€provide€more€useful€andÌattractive€products.€The€essence€of€trademark€law€creates€the€inherentÌoverlapping€of€the€legal€community€and€the€commercial€world,€and€thus,€whenÌdeveloping€or€amending€trademark€law,€the€legal€community€must€consider€theÌindustrial€designers'€perspective.ÌÌBefore€analyzing€current€developments,€a€brief€introduction€of€basicÌtrademark€law€terms€and€concepts€is€necessary€to€demonstrate€how€recentÌchanges€in€trade€dress€protection€align€with€prior€law.€To€familiarize€theÌreader€with€basic€trademark€concepts,€this€Article€first€considers€wordÌmarks€and€progresses€to€product€appearance€feature€marks.ÌÌI.€Basic€Principles€Of€Trademark€Law€For€Word€And€Product€AppearanceÌFeature€MarksÌÌA€general€introduction€to€basic€trademark€law€will€assist€in€understandingÌthe€more€complex€issues€concerning€the€trademark€protection€of€productÌappearance€features.€2€Protection€for€registered€and€unregistered€marksÌunder€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€Act€3€will€be€used€in€the€examples.ÌÌThe€word€"Ô_ÔSunkistÔ_Ô"€4€exists€as€a€trademark€for€citrus€fruits,€since€it€isÌdistinctive€for€such€products.€While€"Ô_ÔSunkistÔ_Ô"€has€a€relation€to€the€use€ofÌthe€sunlight€that€makes€an€orange€grow,€it€does€not€describe€the€process€inÌa€commonly€articulated€manner.€The€"Ô_ÔSunkistÔ_Ô"€mark€is€used€to€help€customersÌidentify€oranges€grown€by€a€producer€organization.€Consumers€benefit€byÌavoiding€confusion€in€the€product€selection€process.€Additionally,€theÌbusiness€develops€goodwill€through€the€creation€of€increased€sales€due€toÌconsumer€identification€with€the€mark.€Economically,€the€company€with€theÌfreshest€oranges€based€on€consumer€experience€is€recognized€and€rewardedÌfor€its€quality€products,€whereas€those€€[*950]€€companies€with€poorÌquality€products€are€identified€and€eliminated€from€the€market.€WithoutÌword€mark€protection,€the€aforementioned€market€conditions€and€the€normalÐ ‹-(, Ðconduct€of€business€would€not€be€possible.ÌÌMere€descriptive€words€do€not€receive€trademark€protection.€5€For€example,Ìthe€words€"ripe"€or€"fresh"€could€not€be€marks€for€oranges€because€theseÌterms€do€not€identify€a€product€source,€which€is€the€essential€purpose€of€aÌtrademark.€Over€time€some€words€that€have€general€meanings€might€becomeÌmarks.€For€example,€"North€American"€acquired€identification€with€a€productÌsource€through€acquisition€of€secondary€meaning.€6ÌÌFinally,€when€a€word€functions€as€the€name€for€a€type€of€product,€it€doesÌnot€receive€trademark€protection.€For€example,€"generic"€terms€such€asÌ"orange,"€do€not€receive€trademark€protection.€7€For€practical€commercialÌreasons,€generic€terms€must€be€reserved€for€general€use.ÌÌWhen€a€word€is€used€with€a€product,€it€may€be€protected€immediately€fromÌsubsequent€marks€that€are€likely€to€cause€confusion.€8€A€word€that€raisesÌno€descriptive€issues€and€is€not€generic€for€a€type€of€product€may€receiveÌimmediate€protection€as€a€mark.€A€word€attaining€this€status€is€commonlyÌcalled€"inherently€distinctive."€Generally,€a€word€is€given€this€importantÌtrademark€right€when€its€use€is€associated€with€a€product€and€consumersÌconsider€it€to€be€a€mark.€9ÌÌThe€aforementioned€principles€define€the€broad€framework€of€trademarkÌprotection€for€words€and€other€marks.€With€word€marks,€each€situation€isÌexamined€on€its€facts€for€descriptiveness,€€[*951]€€mere€descriptiveness,Ìgeneric€use,€inherent€distinctiveness,€and€secondary€meaning.€MostÌsituations€are€not€difficult,€and€the€disputes€that€do€require€litigationÌoften€settle€because€most€parties€would€rather€invest€their€money€inÌpromoting€distinctive€product€marks.ÌÌWhen€assessing€trade€dress€marks,€the€courts€try€to€apply€the€generalÌprinciples€used€for€word€marks€to€the€product€packaging€protection.€10ÌHowever,€product€appearance€features€require€further€analysis€given€theÌdual€role€(function€and€appearance)€inherent€in€product€design.€ForÌexample,€scissors€must€have€a€shape€to€achieve€cutting€action,€but€theyÌalso€exude€the€general€appearance€of€the€two€cross€components.€TrademarkÌlaw€would€deny€protection€for€the€appearance€since€it€is€de€jureÌfunctional.€11€A€product€appearance,€such€as€the€color€of€a€knife,€could€beÌdenied€trademark€status€because€it€is€merely€an€aesthetically€functionalÌproduct€feature.€12€In€litigation,€the€trademark€owner€possesses€the€burdenÌof€proof€and€must€establish€that€the€product€appearance€features€are€notÌfunctional,€or€more€precisely€"merely€functional,"€in€terms€of€technicalÌoperation€or€aesthetics.€13ÌÌIndeed,€products€have€features€that€are€not€primarily€related€to€theirÐ ‹-(, Ðfunction.€For€example,€watches€come€in€many€shapes€and€watch€faces€have€aÌmultitude€of€appearances€designed€to€attract€customers.€14€These€productÌappearance€features€are€evaluated€under€the€"distinctiveness€doctrine"€toÌdetermine€if€they€are€merely€ornamental€or€if€they€can€serve€as€a€mark.ÌMarks€have€a€dual€role€in€that€they€attract€consumers€through€appearanceÌwhile€functioning€to€signify€the€product's€source.€While€a€productÌappearance€case€may€involve€more€issues€than€a€word€mark€dispute,€courtsÌdecide€product€appearance€disputes€on€their€particular€facts.€Historically,Ìexcept€on€the€general€principles€mentioned,€the€courts€gave€little€guidanceÌrelating€to€product€appearance€protection.€However,€a€recent€group€ofÌSupreme€Court€€[*952]€€cases€has€significantly€impacted€product€appearanceÌfeature€trademark€protection.€15ÌÌII.€Supreme€Court€Product€Appearance€Features€Case€Law€DevelopmentÌÌPrior€to€a€recent€group€of€Supreme€Court€cases,€some€product€appearanceÌfeatures€were€protected.€These€rights€arose€either€immediately,€if€theÌfeatures€were€inherently€distinctive,€or€after€acquiring€secondary€meaning.ÌFeatures€that€were€merely€functional,€either€due€to€aesthetics€orÌutilitarian€function,€were€not€protected.€From€a€competitive€viewpoint,Ìthese€features€were€considered€commercial€necessities€and,€hence,€beyondÌthe€scope€of€protection.€Before€the€Supreme€Court€recently€spoke€on€theÌissue,€the€line€between€merely€functional,€Ô_ÔunprotectableÔ_Ô,€productÌappearance€features€and€Ô_ÔprotectableÔ_Ô€appearance€features€was€rather€gray.ÌOne€of€the€initial€debates€was€whether€product€color€could€qualify€as€aÌmark.€16ÌÌA.€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô€Co.€v.€Jacobson€Prods.€Co.,€Inc.ÌÌIn€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô,€the€Supreme€Court€settled€the€color€debate,€at€leastÌpartially.€17€Specifically,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€color€could€be€aÌmark€if€it€is€non-functional,€but€also€recognized€that€color€generally€hadÌan€aesthetic€or€utilitarian€function.€18€In€reaching€this€conclusion,€theÌCourt€applied€the€general€principles€used€for€marks€in€the€past.€InÌÔ_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô,€the€colors€white€and€green€were€used€for€pads€placed€on€laundryÌclothing€presses.€There€was€no€design€shape€associated€with€the€mark.€TheÌproduct€manufacturer€used€the€colors€on€press€pads€for€many€years,€and€theÌCourt€found€that€secondary€meaning€did€exist.€The€only€question€was€whetherÌcolor€could€be€a€mark€as€a€matter€of€law.€Some€considered€colorsÌÔ_ÔunprotectableÔ_Ô,€because€of€the€limited€number€of€colors€available€for€useÌand€the€difficulty€in€identifying€between€color€shades.€19ÌÌ€[*953]€€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô€established€a€broad€foundation€for€the€protection€ofÌproduct€appearance€features.€Particularly,€it€reaffirmed€the€notion€thatÌmerely€functional€marks€could€not€be€protected.€Thus,€colors€such€as€redÐ ‹-(, Ðfire€extinguishers€or€black€and€white€for€electrical€cable,€could€not€beÌmarks€since€they€were€colors€used€to€identify€the€nature€or€characteristicsÌof€the€product.€In€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô,€the€colors€associated€with€the€press€pads€hadÌno€utilitarian€function€and€their€aesthetic€role€was€not€competitivelyÌsignificant.€20ÌÌHowever,€in€the€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô€decision,€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€addressÌwhether€protection€could€be€based€solely€on€the€colors€being€inherentlyÌdistinctive€if€no€secondary€meaning€was€present.€If€the€press€pads€had€beenÌa€unique€combination€of€colors€for€this€type€of€product,€they€could€haveÌbeen€recognized€as€a€mark€immediately.€Much€depended€on€the€circumstancesÌof€the€business€and€comparison€to€prior€products€in€the€market.€The€Court'sÌexample€of€an€orange€jam€jar€with€a€word€mark€and€orange€colored€label,Ìillustrated€the€need€for€an€analysis€of€color€effect€on€the€product€forÌtrademark€determination.€21€The€Court€pointed€out€that,€at€least€initially,Ìthe€jar's€outside€color€would€have€no€trademark€significance.€Instead,€theÌfocus€would€be€on€the€word€mark.€In€this€example,€the€Court€did€not€suggestÌthat€product€color€alone€could€not€be€an€inherently€distinctive€mark,€orÌthat€color€in€other€factual€situations€might€not€be€inherently€distinctive.ÌThus,€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€eliminate€the€possibility€that€color€couldÌbe€inherently€distinctive.ÌÌB.€Two€Pesos,€Inc.€v.€Taco€Ô_ÔCabannaÔ_Ô,€Inc.ÌÌThe€next€significant€Supreme€Court€opinion€to€address€trademark€productÌappearance€features€protection€was€Two€Pesos,€Inc.€22€The€district€courtÌfound€that€the€restaurant€decor,€a€combination€of€internal€and€externalÌbuilding€features,€was€inherently€distinctive.€23€In€affirming,€theÌdistrict€court's€decision,€€[*954]€€the€Supreme€Court€established,€as€aÌmatter€of€law,€that€at€least€some€product€appearance€features€could€beÌinherently€distinctive.€24€The€Court€rejected€the€rule€that€appearanceÌfeature€marks€require€secondary€meaning€for€protection.€25€Thus,€Two€Pesos,ÌInc.€appeared€to€suggest€that€all€product€appearance€features€would€beÌtested€against€the€general€principles€of€trademark€law,€i.e.,€there€wouldÌbe€no€absolute€protection€bars€for€certain€subject€matter.€That€Court€wasÌthen€left€to€decide€the€distinctiveness€requirements€for€product€appearanceÌfeatures.ÌÌC.€Wal-Mart€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Samara€Brothers,€Inc.ÌÌIn€Wal-Mart,€the€Supreme€Court's€evolution€of€trademark€protection€forÌproduct€appearance€features€continued€when€the€Court€finally€addressed€theÌdistinctiveness€issue.€26€However,€even€though€the€Supreme€Court€addressedÌthis€issue,€the€debate€on€whether€the€doctrine€of€inherent€distinctivenessÌshould€apply€to€product€appearance€still€continues.€27€The€Court€limitedÐ ‹-(, Ðits€review€to€whether,€as€a€matter€of€law,€secondary€meaning€was€requiredÌto€protect€trade€dress.€28€Unfortunately,€the€case€analysis€and€conclusionsÌin€Wal-Mart€confuse€both€scholars€and€practitioners.€29ÌÌ€[*955]€€In€Wal-Mart,€the€Court€was€asked€to€resolve€the€question€ofÌwhether€a€dress€design,€with€appliques€in€several€unique€places€on€a€dress,Ìwas€inherently€distinctive.€30€The€appliques€themselves€were€registeredÌcopyrights.€However,€the€overall€dress€appearance€was€the€productÌappearance€feature€on€which€trademark€protection€was€sought.€In€reversingÌthe€lower€court's€finding€of€inherent€distinctiveness,€the€Supreme€CourtÌappeared€to€create€new€law€that€acknowledged€that€no€"product€design"€couldÌbe€inherently€distinctive.€31€Instead,€secondary€meaning€was€required€toÌprotect€the€dress.€The€Court€held€that€product€packaging€would€be€analyzedÌby€the€general€principles€applied€to€word€marks€and€consequently€could€beÌinherently€distinctive.ÌÌThe€Wal-Mart€Court€created€a€separate€class€of€product€features€calledÌ"product€design"€that€were€denied€market€entry€protection.€The€Wal-MartÌCourt€found€support€for€this€new€law€in€the€dicta€from€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô.ÌEssentially,€the€Court€found€that€color€could€never€be€inherentlyÌdistinctive€and€required€secondary€meaning€for€trademark€protection.€32€TheÌCourt's€underlying€principle€was€the€notion€that€product€appearanceÌfeatures€were€not€recognized€by€customers€as€serving€a€trademark€role.€33ÌAll€product€appearance€features€that€are€not€packaging€would€be€subject€toÌthis€rule.€This€decision€created€several€new€issues€for€€[*956]€€productÌappearance€trademark€protection,€such€as€the€Ô_ÔdefinitionalÔ_Ô€aspects€ofÌ"packaging,"€"product€design,"€and€"product."ÌÌThe€Wal-Mart€Court€gave€several€reasons€for€its€decision.€A€major€concernÌwas€the€likelihood€of€protracted€litigation€over€"product€design"€trademarkÌprotection.€34€The€Court€reasoned€that€lower€courts€lacked€the€capacity€toÌdeal€with€the€issue€of€inherent€distinctiveness€on€summary€judgments€inÌmost€cases,€therefore€ensuring€that€litigation€would€become€burdensome€andÌprotracted.€As€an€alternative,€the€Court€urged€protection€of€product€designÌby€other€types€of€intellectual€property,€noting€that€in€this€case€copyrightÌlaw€provided€significant€protection€and€that€design€patents€might€have€beenÌobtained.€35ÌÌWhile€the€Wal-Mart€Court€briefly€discussed€the€application€of€the€doctrineÌof€functionality€to€remove€uncertainty€in€what€product€designs€might€beÌprotected,€it€did€not€suggest€that€this€analysis€would€resolve€theÌlitigation€uncertainty€over€product€design€protection.€36€However,€lessÌthan€two€years€after€Wal-Mart,€the€Supreme€Court€addressed€theÌfunctionality€doctrine,€the€relation€of€trademark€to€utility€patents,€and,Ìby€analogy,€the€use€of€design€patents€to€provide€necessary€earlyÐ ‹-(, Ðprotection.ÌÌÔ_Ô€[*957]ÌÌD.€TrafFix€Devices,€Inc.€v.€Marketing€Displays,€Inc.ÌÌIn€TrafFix,€37€the€final€Supreme€Court€case€in€the€recent€productÌappearance€features€group,€the€Court€determined€whether€an€expired€utilityÌpatent€precluded€a€mark€on€the€same€product€appearance€features€covered€inÌthe€utility€patent€claims.€Because€the€Wal-Mart€holding€left€many€questionsÌunanswered,€both€practitioners€and€academics€were€uncertain€about€how€theÌSupreme€Court€would€examine€the€issues€in€TrafFix.€The€Court€could€haveÌapplied€a€bright€line€test,€as€it€did€in€Wal-Mart,€by€holding€that€thereÌcould€be€no€mark,€either€during€the€patent€term€or€after€the€utility€patentÌexpired.€This€alternative€would€have€simplified€the€determination€ofÌprotectable€subject€matter€and€reduced€frequent€litigation€on€the€patentÌconflict€issue.ÌÌInstead,€the€Court€unanimously€applied€the€functionality€test,€includingÌthe€aesthetic€functionality€test,€to€avoid€a€conflict€with€utility€patentÌlaw.€38€The€Court€left€open€the€question€of€whether€the€functionality€testÌis€sufficient€to€clearly€define€the€interface€between€utility€patents€andÌtrademarks.€39€The€decision€made€clear€that€trademark€law€should€notÌprotect€utility€patent€subject€matter€or€non-patented€primarily€functionalÌfeatures.€This€holding€has€strong€implications;€one€of€which€being€that€theÌcourts€will€now€use€the€doctrine€of€functionality€to€maintain€the€properÌrelation€between€product€feature€trademark€protection€and€patent€law.ÌÌTrafFix€eliminated,€to€some€extent,€the€test€that€permitted€product€featureÌprotection€for€alternative€embodiments€of€a€product.€40€This€previousÌanalysis€was€a€common€method€of€deciding€whether€a€product€appearanceÌfeature€had€a€competitive€impact€and€consequently€could€not€be€protected€asÌa€mark.€The€prior€alternative€embodiments€test€resulted€in€a€narrow€form€ofÌ€[*958]€€product€appearance€trademark€protection€for€function€relatedÌproduct€appearance€features.€This€test€protected€essentially€the€sameÌsubject€matter€as€utility€patent€protection,€where€there€was€no€significantÌcompetitive€benefit€from€the€trademark€protected€alternative€embodiment.ÌThere€was€significant€value€in€this€protection€due€to€a€trademark'sÌperpetual€term.ÌÌUnder€the€TrafFix€rule,€product€appearance€features€related€to€significantÌfunctional€operation€will€not€be€protected€under€trademark€law.€This€newÌtest€leaves€room€for€protecting€appearance€variations€that€have€noÌessential€function.€The€aesthetic€role€of€a€feature€will€be€considered,€andÌif€competitive€significance€from€the€appearance€features€exists,€there€willÐ ‹-(, Ðbe€no€trademark€protection.ÌÔ_ÔÌThe€new€trademark€test€for€product€functionality€will€require€aÌcomprehensive€study€of€how€an€industry€uses€the€alleged€trademark€productÌappearance€features.€For€example,€the€dresses€at€the€center€of€controversyÌin€Wal-Mart€would€be€evaluated€to€determine€the€functionality€of€theÌalleged€trademark€appearance€features.€Under€the€new€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€test,€theÌCourt€would€hold€that€the€appliques€are€primarily€functional€as€aestheticÌfeatures€and€hence€would€not€grant€trademark€protection.ÌÌIn€the€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€opinion,€the€Supreme€Court€hinted€that€perhaps€Wal-Mart€wasÌtoo€strong€in€its€bar€of€inherent€distinctiveness€for€product€appearanceÌfeatures.€The€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€case€suggested€that€there€was€ample€basis€forÌinterpreting€Wal-Mart€narrowly€or€even€limiting€it€to€its€facts.ÌÌIII.€Wal-Mart€Viewed€From€the€Industrial€Design€Professional€and€ConsumerÌPerspectivesÌÌIn€the€practice€of€industrial€design,€professionals€make€products€easier€toÌuse€and€more€attractive.€A€good€example€of€the€importance€of€the€industrialÌdesigners'€role€is€the€recently€developed€I-MAC€computer€desktop€series.ÌThe€computer€CPU€and€monitor€are€one€unit,€equating€to€one€product.€It€isÌimmediately€indicative€of€the€company€making€the€product,€even€with€severalÌmodels€available.€The€computer€cabinets€are€not€packaging,€or€are€they?ÌFrom€the€perspective€of€an€industrial€designer,€features€are€added€to€giveÌproducts€a€unique€appearance€and€make€them€attractive.€For€example,Ìrestaurants€such€as€Pizza€Hut€have€unique€roofs€that€serve€both€as€anÌimmediately€recognizable€trademark€and€as€an€attractive€building€feature.ÌLabel€producing€machines,€such€as€Casio€and€Brother,€have€different€andÌunique€appearances€both€in€form€and€in€their€respective€packaging.€It€isÌthese€distinctive€appearances€that€enable€consumers€to€recognize€a€givenÌproduct.€Are€these€machines,€found€in€plastic€cases€with€instructions€andÌadvertising,€a€package€or€a€product?ÌÌ€[*959]€€Package€design€has€its€own€art€and€sometimes€the€productÌappearance€plays€an€important€role€in€the€package€design.€For€example,€aÌpicture€of€the€product€inside€may€be€shown€on€the€package,€or€the€productÌmay€be€visible€through€a€transparent€window.€Thus,€the€reality€of€packagingÌcreates€questions€about€just€how€Wal-Mart€applies€to€the€real€world€of€theÌindustrial€designer.€41ÌÌIV.€A€Proposed€Lower€Court€Interpretation€of€The€Wal-Mart€DecisionÌÌThere€is€ample€basis€for€interpreting€Wal-Mart€narrowly€and€even€limitingÌit€to€its€facts.€Specifically,€the€Wal-Mart€42€opinion€misconstrues€dictaÐ ‹-(, Ðfound€in€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô,€43€and€fails€to€fully€consider€the€role€of€theÌfunctionality€doctrine€that€the€Supreme€Court€later€clarified€in€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô.ÌÔ_Ô44€Lower€courts€possess€a€great€deal€of€flexibility€when€interpreting€theÌWal-Mart€decision,€and€should€recognize€that€Wal-Mart€introduced€severalÌnew€terms€and€issues.€Instead€of€following€the€Court's€dicta,€i.e.,€theÌgeneral€package€and€product€test,€lower€courts€should€apply€the€essence€ofÌWal-Mart€and€focus€on€what€customers€expect€from€the€particular€featuresÌand€specific€products€involved.€Essentially,€courts€should€focus€theirÌanalysis€on€whether€the€features€are€serving€as€a€trademark€or€whether€theyÌare€merely€utilitarian€or€aesthetic€features.€This€approach€recognizes€thatÌsome€product€appearance€features€can€be€inherently€distinctive€-€aÌconclusion€derived€from€dicta€in€the€TrafFix€decision.ÌÌIn€Wal-Mart,€the€Court€denied€trademark€protection€without€secondaryÌmeaning€under€a€test€that€asked€whether€customers€would€generally€expectÌthat€this€type€of€product€appearance€had€trademark€significance.€InÌdiscussing€the€issue,€the€Court€used€the€example€of€a€penguin€shapedÌcocktail€shaker€as€merely€aesthetic€and€not€protectable€under€trademarkÌlaw.€45€Apparently,€the€cocktail€shaker€users€would€view€the€shaker€asÌprimarily€aesthetic,€simply€a€conversation€piece€for€partygoers.€On€theÌother€hand,€product€appearance€features€exist€that€consumers€could€use€toÌhelp€in€the€identification€of€a€product€source.ÌÌI-MAC€computer€and€Compaq€desktop€computers€are€€[*960]€€examples€ofÌproducts€that€probably€have€inherently€distinctive€appearances.€CustomersÌhave€learned€to€expect€this€type€of€product€to€have€significant€trademarkÌappearances.€When€an€individual€enters€a€large€computer€store€looking€forÌan€Apple€brand€computer€product,€the€appearance€of€the€I-Mac€directs€theÌcustomer€to€the€respective€product€brand.€As€discussed€earlier,€labelÌproducing€machines€are€another€example€of€brand€focused€appearanceÌproducts.€Customers€shop€visually,€initially€looking€for€the€productÌappearance€to€find€their€preferred€product€brand.€However,€while€theseÌproducts€might€be€attractive,€a€customer€will€not€buy€a€product,€such€as€anÌApple€computer,€solely€based€on€appearance.€Hence,€there€is€no€significantÌcompetitive€advantage€in€protecting€the€appearance€of€a€computer€as€aÌtrademark.€Industrial€designers€have€created€a€distinctive€and€attractiveÌproduct.€46ÌÌThese€examples€demonstrate€that€the€Wal-Mart€criteria,€which€requiresÌsecondary€meaning€for€product€appearance€protection,€is€in€reality€moreÌlimiting€than€a€literal€interpretation€might€indicate.€The€proper€analysisÌis€to€evaluate€customer€expectations€in€light€of€whether€the€productÌappearance€features€generally€serve€as€a€mark€for€that€type€of€product.ÌThis€view€is€consistent€with€the€Wal-Mart€holding€and€leaves€the€generalÌdoctrine€of€"inherently€distinctive"€on€a€firm€foundation.Ð ‹-(, ЇThe€Supreme€Court's€dicta€in€the€TrafFix€decision€supports€this€narrowerÌinterpretation€of€Wal-Mart.€Specifically,€the€Court€stated:ÌÌIn€a€case€where€a€manufacturer€seeks€to€protect€arbitrary,€incidental,€orÌornamental€aspects€of€features€of€a€product€found€in€patent€claims,€such€asÌarbitrary€curves€in€the€legs€or€an€ornamental€pattern€painted€on€theÌsprings,€a€different€result€might€obtain.€47ÌÌWhile€merely€dicta,€the€statement€suggests€that€design€patent€features€thatÌhave€some€ornamental€aspects,€48€may€fall€outside€the€TrafFix€case'sÌ"merely€functional"€exclusion.€It€also€opens€the€door€for€the€possibilityÌthat€some€product€appearance€features€could€be€inherently€distinctive.ÌÌFurthermore,€the€proposed€interpretation€of€the€Wal-Mart€decision€wouldÌprovide€important€market€entry€rights€for€products€that€need€immediateÌprotection.€It€would€also€preserve€the€conceptual€framework€of€trademarkÌlaw,€which€is€focused€on€the€facts€of€each€situation.€In€addition,€as€willÌbe€discussed€in€the€€[*961]€€foreign€law€section€of€this€Article,€thisÌinterpretation€would€provide€a€proper€fit€with€generally€acceptedÌinternational€practice€by€facilitating€harmonization€of€product€appearanceÌtrademark€protection.ÌÌThe€uncertainty€resulting€from€the€Wal-Mart€decision€has€generatedÌsignificant€concern,€49€with€a€movement€urging€clarification€of€the€LanhamÌAct.€A€proposed€legislative€revision€is€presented€in€the€next€section.ÌÌV.€Legislative€Proposal€to€Clarify€the€Effect€of€the€Wal-Mart€DecisionÌÌIn€addition€to€the€narrow€interpretation€of€the€Wal-Mart€decision,€thisÌArticle€recommends€a€supportive€legislative€clarification€of€the€LanhamÌAct.€50€One€part€of€the€proposed€legislation€would€confirm€that€theÌtrademark€owner€has€the€burden€to€show€that€a€mark€is€distinctive,€eitherÌinherently€or€through€secondary€meaning.€While€the€owner's€burden€currentlyÌexists,€a€statutory€change€would€clarify€this€point.€This€proposal€followsÌa€recent€change€in€the€Lanham€Act€concerning€functionality,€which€placedÌthe€burden€to€establish€that€an€alleged€trade€dress€is€not€(merely)Ìfunctional€on€the€trademark€owner.€51€The€proposed€legislative€change€andÌthe€narrow€interpretation€of€the€Wal-Mart€case€would€help€courts€handleÌproduct€appearance€trademark€cases€more€efficiently.€Further,€many€casesÌcould€be€decided€on€summary€judgments,€or€otherwise€settled€more€rapidly.ÌThe€second€aspect€of€the€proposed€legislation€would€clarify€that€productÌappearance€may€be€inherently€distinctive€if€the€general€requirements€forÌinherent€distinctiveness€are€met.ÌÌA€wide€spectrum€of€interest€groups€would€support€this€€[*962]€€Ô_ÔlegislativeÐ ‹-(, Ðproposal,€especially€after€considering€the€serious€nature€of€productÌpiracy.€For€example,€sometimes€the€appearance€of€a€product€is€copied€toÌgain€the€benefit€of€the€originating€company's€product€introduction.ÌProtection€timing€is€critical€because€much€of€the€economic€benefit€is€lostÌif€the€copier€cannot€be€stopped€immediately.€In€other€words,€the€potentialÌvalue€of€a€mark€would€be€weakened€if€users€of€similar€product€appearancesÌwere€allowed€to€continue.€Use€of€a€different€word€mark€by€the€copier€wouldÌnot€resolve€the€confusion€since€consumers€would€simply€assume,€given€theÌsimilarity€in€product€appearance,€that€the€original€company€is€using€aÌdifferent€word€mark.ÌÌWhile€there€are€other€forms€of€intellectual€property€protection€nowÌapplicable€to€product€appearance€features,€the€role€of€trademark€law€inÌthis€area€is€unique.€Trademark€law€can€develop€a€sensitive€framework€withÌwhich€to€identify€whether€a€product€has€trademark€significance€uponÌentering€the€market,€through€the€inherent€distinctiveness€principle.€TheÌsafeguards€that€are€now€in€place€due€to€the€aforementioned€recent€group€ofÌSupreme€Court€decisions,€along€with€an€appropriate€narrow€interpretation€ofÌthe€Wal-Mart€decision,€offer€a€necessary€means€to€prevent€trademark€piracy.ÌÌVI.€Renewed€Emphasis€on€Functionality€AnalysisÌÌThe€Supreme€Court€in€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€sharpened€the€focus€on€the€role€of€theÌfunctionality€doctrine€in€trademark€law.€52€Before€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô,€there€was€aÌserious€division€in€the€literature€and€case€law€on€how€to€apply€thisÌstandard.€53€A€product€appearance€that€has€€[*963]€€primarily€a€utilitarianÌor€aesthetic€role€will€no€longer€be€given€trademark€protection,€and€theÌfact€that€competitively€effective€alternative€embodiments€might€exist€isÌnot€enough€to€support€trademark€protection.ÌÌThe€new€focus€on€the€merely€functional€doctrine€is€supported€by€the€Court'sÌstatement€in€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€that€"as€explained€in€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô€...€and€Ô_ÔInwoodÔ_Ô,€...€aÌfeature€is€also€functional€when€it€is€essential€to€the€use€or€purpose€ofÌthe€device€or€when€it€affects€the€cost€or€quality€of€the€device."€54€ThisÌstatement€signals€that€if€a€product€appearance€feature€has€a€competitivelyÌimportant€function,€it€cannot€be€protected€under€trademark€law.€Further,Ìthe€Supreme€Court's€reference€to€Ô_ÔInwoodÔ_Ô€Lab.,€Inc.€v.€Ives€Lab.,€Inc.€is€aÌreminder€to€the€lower€courts€that€trademark€law€cannot€protect€a€merelyÌfunctional€product€appearance.€55€The€existence€of€alternative€embodimentsÌwith€competitively€equal€utilitarian€functions€will€not€be€a€basis€forÌproving€there€should€be€trademark€protection.€This€new€test€refocuses€theÌfunctionality€doctrine,€broadens€it,€and€properly€adjusts€the€balanceÌbetween€utility€€[*964]€€patent€law€and€trademark€product€appearanceÌprotection.ÌÐ ‹-(, ÐThe€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€Court€also€emphasized€another€aspect€of€functionality,€theÌmarketing€impact€of€product€appearance.€The€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€decision€explained€thatÌaesthetic€functionality€was€a€separate€part€of€the€functionality€test.ÌSpecifically,€the€Court€stated€that€"in€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô,€by€contrast,€aestheticalÌfunctionality€was€the€central€question,€there€having€been€no€indicationÌthat€the€green-gold€color€of€the€laundry€press€pad€had€any€bearing€on€theÌuse€or€purpose€of€the€product€or€its€cost€or€quality."€56€The€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_ÔÌopinion€expanded€on€this€point,€stating€in€essence€that€color€did€not€playÌa€significant€role€in€the€product's€purpose€or€use.€57€The€colors€did€makeÌthe€press€pads€attractive€and€covered€up€stains,€but€these€roles€were€notÌsignificant€enough€for€that€product€to€deny€color€trademark€protection.€ItÌis€apparent€that€each€case€should€be€decided€on€a€case-by-case€factualÌanalysis€basis.ÌÌA€great€deal€of€controversy€exists€regarding€the€use€of€an€aestheticÌfunctionality€test.€58€The€main€criticism€centers€on€the€notion€that€theÌtest€is€too€vague.€In€view€of€the€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€and€Wal-Mart€cases,€there€isÌlittle€doubt€that€aesthetic€functionality€will€be€used€more€extensively€toÌlimit€product€appearance€protection.€The€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€opinion€refocused€theÌlower€courts€on€the€limits€of€trademark€product€appearance€protection.ÌÌVII.€Boosting€Product€Appearance€Features€Trademark€Rights€by€Obtaining€aÌDesign€PatentÌÌThe€Supreme€Court€in€Wal-Mart€suggested€that€a€design€patent€could€be€anÌalternative€to€trademark€protection.€59€While€design€patents€are€not€theÌanswer€for€market€entry€protection,€they€may€be€used€to€boost€theÌeffectiveness€of€product€appearance€features€as€trademarks€for€those€marksÌthat€require€secondary€€[*965]€€meaning.€This€step€can€be€taken€only€if€theÌpresence€of€a€design€patent€does€not€preclude€trademark€protection,€bothÌupon€issuance€of€the€design€patent€and€later€when€the€design€patentÌexpires.€Notwithstanding€the€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€decision,€this€subject€continues€toÌgenerate€much€debate.€60ÌÌThe€Supreme€Court's€refusal€to€establish€a€blanket€rule€denying€trademarkÌprotection€for€a€utility€patent€protected€product€appearance€suggests€thatÌthe€Court€will€not€rush€into€the€question€of€design€patent€protection'sÌoverlap€with€trademark€protection.€The€Court€has€applied€trademarkÌprinciples€that€keep€the€notion€of€trademark€focused€on€what€it€shouldÌprotect.ÌÌThe€fundamental€principle€that€design€patents€and€trademarks€do€not€involveÌprimarily€functional€features€makes€the€trademark€and€design€patent€systemsÌcompatible,€albeit€with€different€objectives€and€principles.€ProductÌfeatures€that€are€merely€ornamental,€a€design€patent€requirement,€61€areÐ ‹-(, Ðnot€trademarks.€This€indicates€that€the€systems€do€not€conflict,€because€aÌtrademark€requires€source€identification.€These€fundamental€differencesÌbetween€trademarks€and€design€patents€suggest€that€a€conflict€would€notÌexist€if€there€were€a€design€patent€on€a€product€design€that€was€also€aÌtrademark,€or€was€acquiring€secondary€meaning€en€route€to€trademark€status.ÌÌThe€use€of€design€patents€to€boost€trademark€status€for€product€appearanceÌfeatures€should€be€a€useful€step€for€product€appearance€features€that€areÌnot€inherently€distinctive.€Nevertheless,€the€acquisition€of€trademarkÌdistinctiveness€is€not€guaranteed.€The€design€patent€would€provide€someÌdegree€of€protection€against€piracy,€within€the€limitations€imposed€by€theÌdelays€and€restrictions€of€the€design€patent€system.€62ÌÌThe€next€section€of€this€Article€discusses€foreign€and€internationalÌprotection€of€product€appearance€features.€These€international€developmentsÌshould€influence€the€legislative€decisions€that€pertain€to€the€UnitedÌStates'€protection€of€product€appearance€features.ÌÌVIII.€Foreign€Product€Appearance€Features€Trademark€ProtectionÌÌGlobally,€the€concurrent€use€of€trademarks€and€design€patents€(or€theirÌequivalent€registration€form)€is€widely€accepted.€While€national€law€bindsÌAmerican€courts,€many€national€intellectual€property€laws€are€controlled,Ìor€at€least€influenced,€by€€[*966]€€international€agreements.€Congress€andÌthe€appropriate€governmental€offices€participate€in€meetings€on€proposedÌtreaties€and€bi-lateral€agreements,€and€continuously€review€foreign€laws€toÌdetermine€if€they€provide€effective€protection€for€American€interestsÌabroad.ÌÌMany€events€have€significantly€influenced€the€international€development€ofÌtrademark€product€appearance€protection.€The€most€notable€are€recent€eventsÌsuch€as€the€General€Agreement€on€Tariffs€and€Trade€(GATT-TRIPS),€63€and€theÌCommunity€Trademark€(Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô).€64€In€the€next€section€of€this€Article,€theÌinternational€agreements,€as€well€as€several€foreign€laws€that€were€theÌproduct€of€significant€trend-setting€changes,€are€reviewed.ÌÌA.€International€Perspective€on€Product€Appearance€Protection€-€GATT-TRIPSÌÌInternationally,€TRIPS€is€one€of€the€current€driving€forces€with€respect€toÌproduct€appearance€trademark€registration€protection€65€because€it€includesÌa€requirement€for€a€broad€scope€of€trademark€protection.€While€TRIPS€doesÌnot€specifically€refer€to€trademark€registration€law€product€appearance,Ìthe€expressed€language€encompasses€product€appearance.€66€Particularly,Ìmember€countries€have€interpreted€TRIPS€to€include€product€appearanceÌprotection.€Article€15(1)€of€TRIPS€does€not€address€the€issue€of€whatÐ ‹-(, Ðconstitutes€inherent€distinctiveness€or€secondary€meaning,€but€it€doesÌgrant€members€the€freedom€to€decide€if€secondary€meaning€is€a€requirementÌfor€product€shape€trademark€€[*967]€€registration€protection.€67ÌÌB.€International€Perspective€of€Product€Appearance€Protection€-€CommunityÌTrademark€(Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô).ÌÌThe€European€Union€Community€Trademark€(Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô)€Directive€and€its€relatedÌÔ_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô€Trademark€Regulations€are€also€major€influences€on€internationalÌproduct€appearance€trademark€registration€protection.€In€general,€theÌEuropean€Union€(EU)€Directive€requires€members€to€change€their€nationalÌlaws€to€conform€to€the€Directive.€Essentially,€the€Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô€Directive€requiresÌprotection€by€trademark€registration€of€product€appearance.€68€The€UnitedÌKingdom€experienced€the€impact€of€this€Directive,€because,€up€to€that€time,Ìit€had€not€permitted€trademark€registration€of€product€shape.€69ÌÌThe€exclusion€from€Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô,€which€related€to€product€appearance€protection,Ìincluded€several€important€provisions.€One€of€these€exclusions€was€theÌproduct€shape€necessary€for€a€technical€result,€which€takes€form€in€UnitedÌStates€law€as€the€purely€functional€design€feature€exclusion.€70ÌÌA€few€years€after€the€Directive,€the€EU€enacted€the€Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô€Regulation,€whichÌestablished€a€trademark€registration€system.€71€€[*968]€€The€scope€ofÌsubject€matter€and€exclusions€were€the€same€as€those€set€up€nationally€byÌthe€Directive.€Using€a€complex€set€of€laws€that€retained€priority€for€priorÌnational€rights,€the€registration€system€provided€trademark€and€serviceÌmark€rights€throughout€the€community.€Analyzing€a€few€of€the€EU€trademarkÌregistration€office€decisions€on€product€shape€marks,€it€appeared€that€theÌBoard€of€Appeals€was€applying€a€high€distinctiveness€standard.€72€ThisÌpractice€transformed€the€registration€issue€to€a€question€of€whether€theÌproduct€appearance€had€created€distinctiveness,€i.e.,€secondary€meaning.ÌThis€approach€applied€the€distinctiveness€standard€to€effectively€minimizeÌproduct€appearance€registration€without€secondary€meaning.€The€Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô€systemÌused€an€evenhanded€approach€to€trademark€registration,€retainingÌconsideration€of€inherent€distinctiveness.ÌÌA€Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô€registration€cannot€be€obtained€if€it€is€the€same€as€a€nationallyÌprotected€copyright€or€industrial€design€right€for€the€same€design€that€isÌowned€by€a€third€party.€73€This€feature€allows€members€to€use€theirÌnational€laws€to€settle€disputes€as€to€who€has€the€right€to€protect€aÌdesign,€when€a€coexisting€right€exists.€The€EU€is€in€the€process€ofÌdeveloping€a€harmonized€approach€to€product€appearance€trademarkÌregistration€protection.ÌÌIX.€International€View€of€Product€Shape€Protection€-€Selected€NationalÐ ‹-(, ÐTrademark€Registration€and€Industrial€Design€Registration€Laws€on€ProductÌAppearance€ProtectionÌÌFortunately,€the€International€Association€for€the€Protection€ofÌIntellectual€Property€(Ô_ÔAIPPIÔ_Ô)€recently€surveyed€thirty-one€countries€on€theÌrelationship€between€trademark€registration€laws€and€industrial€designÌregistration€laws€in€an€effort€to€determine€their€interfaces.€The€finalÌreport€contains€a€wealth€of€information,€and€an€analysis€of€this€materialÌdeveloped€the€following€points:ÌÌÌ1.€Product€appearance€is€protected€in€all€of€these€countries€by€trademarkÌlaw,€applying€the€basic€trademark€law€principle€of€€[*969]Ìdistinctiveness;ÌÌÌÌ2.€Secondary€meaning€is€not€necessary€in€almost€all€of€these€countries€toÌprotect€product€appearance.€Most€countries€use€a€case-by-case€analysis€toÌdetermine€if€a€product€shape€is€distinctive,€and€if€it€is€not€distinctive,Ìthen€secondary€meaning€may€be€sufficient€to€permit€registration.ÌÌÌÌ3.€Most€countries€permit€protection€of€product€shape€by€trademarkÌregistration€at€the€same€time€a€product€shape€is€protected€by€industrialÌdesign€registration.€The€trademark€protection€continues€after€expiration€ofÌthe€industrial€design€registration.€The€reasoning€behind€this€approach,Ìgenerally,€was€that€the€regular€exclusions€from€trademark€protection,€suchÌas€a€technical€result,€the€appearance€as€the€natural€form€of€a€product,€orÌadditions€in€value,€adequately€eliminated€any€major€policy€conflicts€withÌextending€design€protection€by€trademark€registration.€Also,€as€mentionedÌearlier,€some€countries€applied€a€high€level€of€distinctiveness,Ìessentially€requiring€secondary€meaning€for€many€product€shapes€to€minimizeÌunwanted€policy€issues.€There€were€some€countries,€particular€the€FrenchÌGroup,€that€expressed€concern€about€extended€protection€from€trademarkÌregistration€after€an€industrial€design€registration€expired.€All€reportsÌindicated€that€a€strong€policy€argument€existed€to€maintain€product€shapeÌtrademark€registration€protection,€for€appropriate€subject€matter,€toÌprevent€customer€confusion.ÌÌÌÌ4.€The€reports€revealed€general€agreement€on€the€concurrent€protection€byÌtrademark€registration€and€industrial€design€registration,€and€theÐ ‹-(, Ðcontinued€trademark€registration€protection€after€expiration€of€theÌindustrial€design€registration,€within€the€context€of€each€system.€ThereÌwas€recognition€that€the€extent€of€subject€matter€protected€for€each€systemÌmight€be€different,€and€the€basis€for€infringement€determination€mightÌdiffer,€producing€unique€overlapping€protection€for€each€IP€form€and€forÌeach€product.ÌÌÌÌ5.€While€there€was€considerable€agreement€on€the€basic€trademark€principlesÌand€how€to€apply€them,€there€was€expressed€a€general€need€for€moreÌharmonization€on€legal€and€procedural€aspects,€including€what€should€beÌexcluded€from€protection.€This€discussion€should€be€convened€soon.€74ÌÌÌCONCLUSIONÌÌThe€basic€trademark€law€principles€that€are€applied€to€word€marks€workÌeffectively€for€product€appearance€features€with€the€proper€application€ofÌthe€functionality€test.€Utility€patent€law€and€€[*970]€€trademark€law€haveÌdifferent€criteria,€and€as€long€as€that€separation€is€carefully€maintained,Ìthere€should€be€no€need€to€have€an€absolute€bar€for€inherently€distinctiveÌproduct€appearance€features.€Each€case€should€be€reviewed€separately€on€aÌfactual€basis.ÌÌThe€principle€of€inherent€distinctiveness€is€a€fundamental€aspect€ofÌtrademark€law.€Specifically,€inherent€distinctiveness€provides€word€marksÌand€product€appearance€feature€marks€with€important€protection€againstÌcopying€at€the€time€of€market€introduction.€Product€appearance€features€canÌserve€as€marks€immediately€upon€market€entry.€This€deduction€is€selfÌevident€from€the€success€of€industrial€designers€in€creating€distinctiveÌproducts.ÌÌIn€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô,€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€hold€as€a€matter€of€law€that€colorÌcould€never€be€inherently€distinctive,€and€in€Wal-Mart€the€CourtÌincorrectly€relied€on€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô€to€support€the€principle€that€"productÌdesign"€(product€appearance€features)€is€not€Ô_ÔprotectableÔ_Ô€under€theÌinherently€distinctive€principle.€Lower€courts€are€urged€to€interpretÌWal-Mart€narrowly€and€instead€focus€on€the€basic€principle€stated€inÌWal-Mart:€the€importance€of€the€customer's€likely€expectation€on€the€roleÌof€product€appearance.€If€customers€would€expect€that€an€appearance€mightÌserve€as€a€mark€for€that€type€of€product,€then€there€should€be€inherentÌdistinctiveness.€Again,€this€is€a€factual€analysis,€and€each€case€should€beÌconsidered€on€its€own€merits.ÌÐ ‹-(, ÐCongress€is€urged€to€enact€legislation€that€will€clarify€that€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_ÔÌAct€does€not€bar€product€appearance€features€from€being€inherentlyÌdistinctive.€In€addition,€this€clarifying€legislation€should€affirm€thatÌthe€mark€owner€bears€the€burden€to€prove€a€product€appearance€feature€isÌinherently€distinctive.ÌÌGlobally,€trademark€law€is€becoming€more€uniform.€Countries€other€than€theÌUnited€States€have€overwhelmingly€adopted€the€case-by-case€analysis,€withÌthe€same€principles€applied€for€word€marks€and€product€appearance.€TheÌmerely€functional€test€is€also€used€to€deny€protection.€The€goal€ofÌharmonization€would€not€be€reached€if€the€United€States€adopted€a€bar€toÌinherent€distinctiveness€in€product€appearance.ÌÌThe€use€of€design€patents€to€boost€trademark€rights,€by€maintainingÌexclusive€rights€for€some€product€appearance€features,€is€a€sound€approachÌbased€on€existing€American€law€and€is€used€in€most€foreign€countries.€TheÌunique€requirements€for€a€mark€will€justify€its€existence€during€designÌpatent€protection€and€after€patent€expiration.€As€the€Supreme€Court€statedÌin€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô€and€suggested€in€Wal-Mart€and€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô,€aesthetic€functionalityÌwill€play€a€special€role€to€keep€product€appearance€feature€marks€on€theÌright€course.€Where€there€is€no€role€other€than€aesthetics€orÌornamentation,€an€expired€design€patent's€features€are€€[*971]€€availableÌfor€all€to€use.€Only€if€customers€have€found€trademark€significance€willÌthere€be€a€trademark€that€continues€after€design€patent€expiration.€TheseÌprinciples€will€balance€competition€and€fair€business€dealing.ÌÌThe€interpretation€of€the€recent€Supreme€Court€decisions€coupled€with€theÌcurrent€legislation€will€trigger€a€reduction€in€the€subject€matter€scopeÌfor€trademark€product€appearance€protection.€Fewer€product€appearances€willÌbe€Ô_ÔprotectableÔ_Ô€under€trademark€law.€The€protection€door€has€closedÌsignificantly.€Sharper€focus€and€narrower€scope€of€subject€protection€forÌtrademark€product€appearance€is€a€strong€incentive€to€follow€the€lead€ofÌother€countries€and€develop€a€new€market€entry€design€protection€law.€ThereÌis€significant€support€for€this€type€of€legislation€in€the€United€States,Ìas€evidenced€by€the€recently€enacted€market€entry€protection€of€vesselÌhulls€and€the€history€of€similar€legislative€efforts.€75ÌÌFOOTNOTES:Ìn1€€See,€e.g.,€Wal-Mart€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Samara€Brothers,€Inc.,€529€U.S.€205,€209-215€(2000)Ì(addressing€the€trade€dress€protection€of€product€design€in€infringementÌactions€under€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€Act).€In€the€Wal-Mart€decision,€the€Court€used€theÌterm€"product€design"€to€separate€product€packaging€analysis€from€howÌproduct€appearance€would€be€treated€under€trademark€law.€Wal-Mart€Stores,ÌInc.,€529€U.S.€at€211-213.€The€term€"product€design"€may€be€used€as€aÌgeneral€term€that€refers€to€how€a€product€is€constructed€internally€andÐ ‹-(, Ðexternally,€including€functional€and€aesthetic€features.€Id.€at€213.€InÌthis€Article€the€phrase€"product€appearance€features"€is€used€to€defineÌwhat€a€customer€sees€on€a€product€that€may€or€may€not€be€a€mark.€BecauseÌthe€phrase€"product€design"€has€several€possible€meanings,€this€ArticleÌuses€the€phrase€"product€appearance€features"€to€describe€what€the€customerÌsees€on€the€product,€including€its€shape€and€surface€features.€The€termÌ"package"€is€used€to€describe€that€which€contains€a€product.€A€customerÌmust€unwrap€or€open€a€package€to€reach€the€product.€For€example,€cereal,Ìsoft€drinks,€and€dolls€all€come€in€packages.€Sometimes€a€product€can€showÌthrough€a€transparent€package,€and€thus,€the€product€becomes€a€part€of€theÌpackage€appearance.€The€term€"trademark"€is€used€in€this€Article€to€includeÌall€forms€of€marks,€including€product€appearance€feature€marks.€For€aÌdescription€of€Industrial€Design€see€the€Industrial€Designers€Society€ofÌAmerica,€ID€Defined:€Comprehensive€Description€of€Industrial€Design,€atÌhttp://www.ids.org/whatis/definition.htm€(last€visited€Aug.€29,€2001).ÌÌn2.€For€a€discussion€ofÌthe€general€background€of€basic€trademark€law€see€generally€Charles€R.ÌÔ_ÔMacManisÔ_Ô,€Intellectual€Property€and€Unfair€Competition€in€a€Nutshell€(WestÌGroup€4th€ed.€2001);€J.€Thomas€McCarthy,€McCarthy€on€Trademark€and€UnfairÌCompetition€(4th€ed.€2001);€Jerome€Ô_ÔGilsonÔ_Ô€et€al,€Trademark€Protection€andÌPractice€(2001).ÌÌn3.€15€U.S.C.€1051-1127Ì(2001).ÌÌn4.€U.S.€Trademark€Reg.ÌNo.€0117107€(registered€June€19,€1917).ÌÌn5.€See€42€U.S.C.€1052(e)Ì(2001)€(denying€trademark€protection€for€merely€descriptive€terms).ÌÌn6.€North€Am.€Ô_ÔAircoachÔ_ÔÌÔ_ÔSysÔ_Ô.,€Inc.€v.€North€Am.€Aviation,€Inc.,€231€F.2d€205,€209€(1955).€In€thisÌfamous€case€regarding€the€phrase€"North€American"€as€a€mark€for€airplanes,Ìthe€fact€that€the€manufacturer€was€in€the€United€States€did€not€prevent€theÌprimary€significance€of€the€geographic€phrase€from€acquiring€secondaryÌmeaning€and€functioning€as€a€mark.€Id.€at€210.€The€secondary€meaning€forÌ"North€American"€derived€from€the€extensive€publicity€of€the€fighter€planesÌduring€World€War€II.€Id.€There€are€several€U.S.€trademark€registrations€forÌ"North€American."€For€example,€"North€American"€is€a€registered€trademarkÌfor,€among€other€things,€compressed€air-oil,€torch€and€blower€controls.ÌU.S.€Trademark€Reg.€No.€1292737€(registered€Sept.€4,€1984).ÌÌn7.€See€King-Ô_ÔSeeleyÔ_ÔÐ ‹-(, ÐThermos€Co.€v.€Aladdin€Indus.,€Inc.,€321€F.2d€577€(2nd€Cir.€1963)€(denyingÌtrademark€protection€for€generic€terms).ÌÌn8.€See,€e.g.,€Ô_ÔEsteeÔ_ÔÌLauder€Inc.€v.€The€Gap,€Inc.,€108€F.3d€1503,€1509-10€(2d€Cir.€1997)Ì(discussing€trade€mark€protection€in€the€event€of€a€likelihood€ofÌconfusion).ÌÌn9.€See€In€Re€PennsylvaniaÌFashion€Factory,€Inc.,€588€F.2d€1343,€1345€(Ô_ÔC.C.P.A.Ô_Ô€1978)€(holding€thatÌthe€alleged€mark€was€not€sufficiently€associated€with€the€clothes€for€whichÌmark€protection€was€sought€because€it€was€only€on€the€store€bag).ÌEssentially,€the€alleged€mark€was€not€located€in€a€manner€that€would€createÌtrademark€identification€for€customers.€Id.ÌÌn10.€See€Syndicate€Sales,ÌInc.€v.€Hampshire€Paper€Corp.,€192€F.3d€633,€638€(7th€Cir.€1999)€(holdingÌthat€a€different€packaging€of€nearly€identical€floral€baskets€effectivelyÌlimited€any€alleged€confusion€and€consequently€precluded€an€alarm€for€tradeÌdress€infringementÌÌn11.€See€In€re€Teledyne€Indus.,€Inc.,€696€F.2d€968€(Fed.€Cir.€1982)€(holding€that€the€showerheadÌappearance€was€de€facto€functional,€and€thus,€not€Ô_ÔregistrableÔ_Ô).ÌÌn12.€See€Ô_ÔForschnerÔ_Ô€Group,€Inc.€v.€Arrow€Trading€Co.,€Inc.,€124€F.3d€402€(2d€Cir.€1997)€(holdingÏthat€a€Swiss€army€knife's€red€color€was€aesthetically€functional).ÌÌn13.€See€15€U.S.C.€1125(a)(3)€(2001)€(stating€that€a€"person€who€asserts€trade€dressÌprotection€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€matter€sought€to€be€protectedÌis€not€functional").ÌÌn14.€See€Sunrise€Jewelry€Mfr.€v.€Fred,€175€F.3d€1322€(Fed.€Cir.€1999)€(affirming€the€U.S.€PatentÏand€Trademark€Office's€dismissal€of€a€petition€to€cancel€the€registration€of€aÌ"metallic€nautical€rope€design"€for€clocks,€watches,€and€jewelry€made€ofÌprecious€metal).ÌÌn15.€See€infra€notes€17€to€41€and€accompanying€text€(discussing€the€relevance€and€significance€ofÌrecent€Supreme€Court€decisions€that€have€impacted€trademark€law).ÌÌn16.€See€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô€Co.€v.€Jacobson€Prods.€Co.,€Inc.,€514€U.S.€159,€160-61€(1995)€(addressingÌtrademark€protection€for€color€under€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€Act).ÌÌn17.€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô,€514€U.S.€at€173.€The€Court€asserted€that€"color€may€sometimes€meet€the€basicÏlegal€requirements€for€use€as€a€trademark.ÌÐ ‹-(, Ðn18.€Id.€The€Court€noted€that€the€language€of€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€Act,€which€"permits€an€ordinary€word,Ìnormally€used€for€Ô_ÔnontrademarkÔ_Ô€purposes€(e.g.,€description),€to€act€as€aÌtrademark€where€it€has€gained€"secondary€meaning',"€should€logically€applyÌto€color€as€well.€Id.€at€171-72.ÌÌn19.€Id.€at€167.€The€Court€recognized€that€courts€have€traditionally€addressed€whether€wordÏmarks€require€protection€when€secondary€meaning€is€acquired,€finding€thatÌprotection€was€warranted.€Id.€The€Court€applied€the€word€mark€analysis€toÌthe€question€of€color€protection,€and€maintained€that€color€should€beÌtreated€in€the€same€manner.€Id.ÌÌn20.€Id.€at€166.€The€Court€stated€that€the€"green-gold€color€served€no€other€function,"€butÏrecognized€that€it€did€have€a€role€in€making€the€product€attractive€by€covering€upÌstains.€Id.€The€primary€significance€of€the€color€combination€was€sourceÌidentification.€Id.ÌÌn21.€Id.€at€163.€The€Court€asserted€that€"over€time,€customers€may€come€to€treat€a€particularÏcolor€on€a€product€or€it's€packaging€[]€as€signifying€a€brand."€Id.ÌÌn22.€Two€Pesos,€Inc.€v.€Taco€Cabana,€Inc.,€505€U.S.€763€(1992).ÌÌn23.€Two€Pesos,€Inc.,€505€U.S.€at€766.€The€District€Court's€jury€instructions€defined€trade€dressÏas€the:€total€image€of€the€business.€Taco€Ô_ÔCabannaÔ_Ô's€trade€dress€may€include€theÌshape€and€general€appearance€of€the€exterior€of€the€restaurant,€theÌidentifying€sign,€the€interior€kitchen€floor€plan,€the€decor,€the€menu,€theÌequipment€used€to€serve€food,€the€servers'€uniforms€and€other€featuresÌreflecting€on€the€total€image€of€the€restaurant.€Id.€at€765€n.1.ÌÌn24.€Id.€at€776.ÌÌn25.€Id.€at€772.€The€Ô_ÔCourtrecognizedÔ_Ô€that€section€2€of€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€Act€only€required€secondaryÏmeaning€as€a€condition€to€registering€descriptive€marks;€and€thus,€some€marks€wereÌÔ_ÔregistrableÔ_Ô€without€establishing€a€secondary€meaning.€Id.ÌÌn26.€Wal-Mart€Stores,€Ô_ÔInc.v.Ô_Ô€Samara€Brothers,€Inc.,€529€U.S.€205,€205€(2000)ÌÌn27.€See,€e.g.,€McCarthy,€supra€note€2,€8.13€(preferring€a€multi-factor€test€to€determine€inherentÌdistinctiveness).€See€also€Adam€J.€Ô_ÔCermakÔ_Ô,€Inherent€Distinctiveness€inÌProduct€Configuration€Trade€Dress,€3€U.€Ô_ÔBaltÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔIntellÔ_Ô.€Prop.€Ô_ÔL.J.Ô_Ô€79€(1994)Ì(favoring€a€flexible€approach€with€several€factors€proposed).€InÌÔ_ÔReconceptualizingÔ_Ô€the€Inherent€Distinctiveness€of€Product€Trade€Dress,€theÌauthor,€Graeme€B.€Ô_ÔDinwoodieÔ_Ô,€generally€supported€the€multi-factor€test,Ìoriginally€discussed€in€Ô_ÔSeabrookÔ_Ô€Foods,€Inc.€v.€Bar-Well€Foods,€Ltd.,€568ÌF.2d€1342€(Ô_ÔC.C.P.A.Ô_Ô€1977).€75€N.C.€L.€Rev.€471€(1997).€Specifically,ÌÔ_ÔDinwoodieÔ_Ô€opposed€separate€tests€for€packaging€and€product€configurationÐ ‹-(, Ðmarks.€Professor€Ô_ÔDinwoodieÔ_Ô's€article€is€an€excellent€review€of€the€majorÌtrade€dress€protection€literature€published€prior€to€the€Wal-Mart€decision.ÌSee€also€Jay€Ô_ÔDratlerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Trademark€Protection€for€Industrial€Designs,Ì1988€U.€Ill.€L.€Rev.€887€(supporting€limited€trademark€protection€forÌindustrial€designs,€but€also€addressing€a€concern€with€respect€to€theÌextent€that€the€doctrine€of€aesthetic€functionality€should€be€applied);ÌWilliam€F.€Ô_ÔGaskeÔ_Ô,€Comment,€Trade€Dress€Protection:€Inherent€DistinctivenessÌas€an€Alternative€to€Secondary€Meaning,€57€Fordham€L.€Rev.€1123,€1130Ì(1989)€(urging€a€requirement€of€secondary€meaning€for€all€trade€dressÌprotection).ÌÌn28.€Wal-Mart,€529€U.S.€at207.ÌÌn29.€See,€e.g.,€Jeffery€M.€Samuels€&€Linda€B.€Samuels,€Trade€Dress€Undressed:€Wal-Mart€v.ÏSamara,€29AIPLA€Q.€J.€43€(2001)€(asserting€that€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€inÌWal-Mart€was€troublesome€in€several€respects).€Specifically,€the€authorsÌnoted€that:€€the€Supreme€Court's€Wal-Mart€decision€was€ill€advised.€It€will€render€legalÌprotection€for€new€designs€more€problematic€and€will€create€additionalÌuncertainty€in€the€law.[]€The€application€of€different€tests€to€packagingÌand€design€cases€is€impractical€and€unwarranted.€The€Court'sÌ"anti-competitiveness"€concerns€could€be€effectively€addressed€throughÌapplication€of€the€functionality€doctrine.ÌÌId.€at€63.€See€also€infra€note€49€(discussing€the€American€BarÌAssociation's€opposition€to€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€in€Wal-Mart).ÌÌn30.€Wal-Mart,€529€U.S.€at€207.ÌÌn31.€Id.€at€212.€In€addressing€this€issue,€the€Court€asserted€that,€"the€fact€that€productÌdesign€almost€invariably€serves€purposes€other€than€source€identificationÌnot€only€renders€inherent€distinctiveness€problematic;€it€also€rendersÌapplication€of€an€inherent-distinctiveness€principle€more€harmful€to€otherÌconsumer€interests."€Id.ÌÌn32.€Id.€at€216.€The€Court€stated€its€findings€and€held€that€"in€an€action€for€infringement€ofÌunregistered€trade€dress€under€43(a)€of€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€Act,€a€product's€designÌis€distinctive,€and€therefore€Ô_ÔprotectibleÔ_Ô,€only€upon€a€showing€of€secondaryÌmeaning."€Id.ÌÌn33.€Id.€at€212.€InÌdefending€the€proposition€that€customers€do€not€recognize€productÌappearance€features€as€serving€a€trademark€purpose,€the€Court€noted€that:Ìin€the€case€of€product€design,€as€in€the€case€of€color,€we€think€consumerÌpredisposition€to€equate€the€feature€with€the€source€does€not€exist.ÌConsumers€are€aware€of€the€reality€that,€almost€invariably,€even€the€mostÐ ‹-(, Ðunusual€of€product€designs€-€such€as€a€cocktail€shaker€shaped€like€aÌpenguin€-€is€intended€not€to€identify€the€source,€but€to€render€the€productÌitself€more€useful€or€more€appealing.ÌÌId.ÌÌn34.€Id.€at€213-214€(discussing€the€reality€that€competition€would€be€deterred€by€a€successfulÌsuit,€or€the€threat€of€a€successful€suit).ÌÌn35.€Id.€at€214€(noting€that€the€"availability€of€these€other€protections€[i.e.,€copyright€andÌdesign€patents]€greatly€reduces€any€harm€to€the€producers€that€might€ensueÌfrom€our€conclusion€that€a€product€design€cannot€be€protected€under€43(a)Ìwithout€a€showing€of€secondary€meaning").€The€copyright€protection€at€issueÌin€Wal-Mart€extended€only€to€the€appliques,€not€to€the€total€dress€image.ÌThe€courts€and€the€Copyright€Office€have€seriously€limited€copyright€lawÌprotection€of€product€appearance,€by€exercising€a€narrow€interpretation€ofÌthe€statutory€requirement€for€separability€of€the€protected€design€fromÌfunctional€product€features.€See€17€U.S.C.€101€(1)€(2001)€(defining€"usefulÌarticle"€and€"pictorial,€graphic€and€sculptural€work");€17€U.S.C.€113Ì(2001)€(discussing€the€scope€of€exclusive€rights€in€pictorial,€graphic,€andÌsculptural€works);€17€U.S.C.€102(8)€(2001)€(providing€that€copyright€lawÌdoes€afford€effective€copyright€protection€for€architectural€works).€DesignÌpatents€require€novelty€as€well€as€the€general€patent€requirements,€35ÌÔ_ÔU.S.CÔ_Ô€1€et€seq.€(1998).€Design€patents€provide€very€good€protection€forÌproduct€appearances€if€they€satisfy€novelty€and€prompt€filing€requirements.ÌUnfortunately,€design€patents€do€not€have€retroactive€rights.€Only€uponÌissuance€of€the€design€patent€can€one€file€an€action;€a€design€patent€isÌissued€approximately€one€to€two€years€after€the€date€of€filing.€This€delayÌin€filing€an€infringement€suit€can€be€critical.€See€William€T.€Fryer,€III,ÌDesign€Patent€System€for€the€Twenty-First€Century,€24€Ô_ÔAIPLAÔ_Ô€Q.€J.€331,Ì339-341€(1996)€(illustrating€statistics€on€design€patent€Ô_ÔpendancyÔ_Ô).ÌÌn36.€See€Wal-Mart€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Samara€Brothers,€Inc.,€529€U.S.€205,€213€(2000)€(noting€thatÏthe€capacity€to€bring€a€plausible€suit€depends,€"upon€the€clarity€of€the€testÌfor€inherent€distinctiveness,€and€where€product€design€is€concerned€we€haveÌlittle€confidence€that€a€reasonably€clear€test€can€be€devised).ÌÌn37.€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€Devices€Inc.€v.€Marketing€Displays€Inc.,€121€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€1255€(2001).ÌÌn38.€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô,€121€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€at€1261-1263.€In€discussing€the€functionality€test,€the€Court€noted€that€"inÌgeneral€terms,€a€product€feature€is€functional,€and€cannot€serve€as€aÌtrademark,€if€it€is€essential€to€the€use€or€purpose€of€the€article€or€if€itÌaffects€the€cost€or€quality€of€the€article."€Id.€at€1261.ÌÌn39.€See€id.€at€1263(stating€that,€"[if],€despite€the€rule€that€functional€features€may€not€beÐ ‹-(, Ðthe€subject€of€trade€dress€protection,€a€case€arises€in€which€trade€dressÌbecomes€the€practical€equivalent€of€an€expired€utility€patent,€that€will€beÌtime€enough€to€consider€the€matter").ÌÌn40.€See€supra€notes€11€to15€and€accompanying€text€(discussing€the€implication€of€productÏappearance€protection).€A€Federal€Circuit€case€illustrates€the€product€appearanceÌprotection€for€alternative€embodiments€of€a€product.€In€Ô_ÔInÔ_Ô€re€Teledyne,€theÌappellant€attempted€to€maintain€a€trademark€for€the€configuration€of€aÌshowerhead€nozzle.€692€F.2d€968,€969€(Fed.€Cir.€1982).€The€Federal€CircuitÌheld€that€in€the€absence€of€evidence€showing€the€existence€of€commerciallyÌfeasible€alternative€showerhead€configurations,€which€others€could€utilizeÌto€successfully€compete€with€appellant€on€the€basis€of€utility,€theÌappellant€had€failed€to€rebut€the€Patent€and€Trademark€Offices'€case€of€deÌjure€functionality.€Id.€at€971.ÌÌn41.€The€Industrial€Designers€Society€of€American€(Ô_ÔIDSAÔ_Ô)€web€site€is€an€informative€industrialÌdesign€source.€Ô_ÔIDSAÔ_Ô,€at€http://www.idsa.com€(last€visited€Aug.€29,€2001).ÌÌn42.€See€supra€text€accompanying€notes€26€to€36€(discussing€the€application€and€analysis€of€theÌSupreme€Court's€decision€in€Wal-Mart).ÌÌn43.€See€supra€text€accompanying€notes€16€to€21€(discussing€the€application€and€analysis€of€theÌSupreme€Court's€decision€in€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô).ÌÌn44.€See€supra€Ô_ÔtextaccompanyingÔ_Ô€notes€37€to€40€(discussing€the€application€and€analysis€of€theÌSupreme€Court's€decision€in€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô).ÌÌn45.€Wal-Mart,€529€U.S.€at213.ÌÌn46.€See€supra€note€41€(discussing€the€role€of€the€industrial€designer€in€the€context€of€trademarkÌlaw).ÌÌn47.€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€Devices€Ô_ÔInc.v.Ô_Ô€Marketing€Displays€Inc.,€121€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€1255,€1262€(2001).ÌÌn48.€Design€patents€Ô_ÔmusthaveÔ_Ô€ornamental€features€in€order€to€fall€within€the€scope€of€Ô_ÔprotectableÔ_ÔÌsubject€matter.€35€U.S.C.€171€(2001).ÌÌn49.€See€Samuels€&€Ô_ÔSamuelssupraÔ_Ô€note€29€and€accompanying€text€(discussing€the€troublesomeÏaspects€Ô_ÔandnegativeÔ_Ô€implications€of€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€in€Wal-Mart).€TheÌAmerican€Bar€Association€Section€of€Intellectual€Property€Law€also€voicedÌits€concerns€about€the€Wal-Mart€decision€at€its€2001€annual€businessÌmeeting€in€Seattle,€Washington.€Action€Taken€on€Resolution€412-1€at€theÌ2001€Summer€IPL€Conference,€Trade€Dress€Inherent€Distinctiveness€forÌProduct€Configuration€Resolved,€American€Bar€Association€Section€ofÌIntellectual€Property€Law€(June€27-July,€1€2001).€Specifically,€theÐ ‹-(, Ðproposed€resolution€stated€that€"the€Section€of€Intellectual€Property€LawÌfavors€in€principle€the€revision€of€the€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€Act,€15€U.S.C.€1051-1127,€toÌstate€that€there€can€be€inherent€distinctiveness€of€a€non-functionalÌproduct€configuration€when€the€general€requirements€for€inherentÌdistinctiveness€applied€to€all€trade€dress€are€met."ÌÌn50.€15€U.S.C.€1051-1127.ÌÌn51.€See€15€U.S.C.€1125(a)(2001)€("the€person€who€asserts€trade€dress€protection€has€the€burdenÏof€proving€that€the€matter€sought€to€be€protected€is€not€functional.").€SeeÌalso€Theodore€H.€Davis,€Jr.,€The€Burden€of€Proof€in€Determinations€of€TradeÌDress,€88€Trademark€Rpt.€325,€347-48€(1998)€(supporting€the€proposedÌlegislative€change€and€providing€the€ground€work€for€the€passage€of€theÌlegislation).ÌÌn52.€See€supra,€Ô_ÔtextaccompanyingÔ_Ô€notes€37€to€40€(discussing€the€application€and€analysis€of€theÌSupreme€Court's€decision€in€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô).ÌÌn53.€Perry€J.€Ô_ÔSaidmanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔinhisÔ_Ô€article,€Ô_ÔKanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKopsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKatchÔ_Ô€the€Ô_ÔKararanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKopyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKatsÔ_Ô?€Or€BeyondÌFunctionality;€Design€Patents€are€the€Key€to€Unlocking€Trade€Dress€PatentÌConundrum,€concluded€that:€€simply€stated,€the€doctrine€of€functionality€falls€short€in€answeringÏtheÌquestion€of€whether€granting€trade€dress€rights€in€the€subject€matter€of€anÌexpired€patent€unduly€extends€the€exclusive€rights€(i.e.,€the€conundrum),Ìfor€two€reasons:€one,€the€doctrine€of€functionality€fails€to€distinguishÌbetween€unexpired€and€expired€utility€patents;€and€two,€it€cannot€beÌapplied€in€any€reasonable€objective€manner€to€design€patents.ÌÌPerry€J.€Ô_ÔSaidmanÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔKanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKopsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKatchÔ_Ô€the€Ô_ÔKararanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKopyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKatsÔ_Ô?€Or€BeyondÌFunctionality;€Design€Patents€are€the€Key€to€Unlocking€Trade€Dress€PatentÌConundrum,€82€J.€Pat.€&€Trademark€Off.€Ô_ÔSoc'yÔ_Ô€839,€884€(2000).€At€theÌpresent€time€the€Court€answered€these€objections€by€holding€the€doctrine€ofÌfunctionality,€when€properly€applied,€did€substantially€resolve€the€tradeÌdress€and€utility€patent€conflict,€so€the€issue€of€design€patent€interfaceÌdid€not€require€a€change€in€the€law.€See€Theodore€H.€Davis,€Jr.,€Copying€inÌthe€Shadow€of€the€Constitution:€the€Rational€Limits€of€Trade€DressÌProtection,€86€Trademark€Rep.€223€(1986)€(finding€a€constitutional€basisÌfor€applying€the€test€of€merely€functional€to€exclude€features);€see,€e.g.,ÌRonald€J.€Ô_ÔHortaÔ_Ô,€Comment,€Without€Secondary€Meaning:€Do€Product€DesignÌTrade€Dress€Protection€Function€as€Infinite€Patents,€27€Suffolk€U.€L.€Rev.Ì113,€132-134€(1993)€(theorizing€that€secondary€meaning€is€necessary€forÌtrade€dress€protection€as€it€gives€notice€of€possible€rights€and€reducesÌconflicts€with€patents).€This€solution€is€consistent€with€the€liberalÌinterpretation€of€the€Wal-Mart€decision.€See€Jay€Ô_ÔDratlerÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Trade€dressÌprotection€for€product€configurations:€is€there€a€conflict€with€patentÐ ‹-(, Ðpolicy?,€427€Ô_ÔAIPLAÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔQ.J.Ô_Ô€427,€594-98€(applying€a€Ô_ÔKewaneeÔ_Ô€type€patent€policyÌanalysis,€concluding€that€trade€dress€and€utility€patents€can€coexist).ÌProfessor€Ô_ÔDratlerÔ_Ô€urged€a€continuation€of€the€current€law€and€suggestedÌthat€a€strict€interpretation€of€the€current€standards€would€most€likelyÌcreate€negative€effects.€Id.€at€594-598.€See€also€Todd€R.€Ô_ÔGeremiaÔ_Ô,€Comment,ÌProtecting€the€Right€to€Copy:€Trade€Dress€Claims€for€Configurations€inÌExpired€Utility€Patents,€92€Nw.€U.€L.€Rev.€779,€815-16€(1998)€(recommendingÌthat€trade€dress€rights€end€after€a€utility€patent€disclosing€the€tradeÌdress€expired,€and€concluding€that€the€doctrine€of€functionality€does€notÌadequately€eliminate€unwarranted€protection);€Ô_ÔWillajeanneÔ_Ô€F.€McLean,ÌOpening€Another€Can€of€Worms:€Protecting€Product€Configuration€as€TradeÌDress,€66€U.€Ô_ÔCinÔ_Ô.€L.€Rev.€119,€146€(1997)€(identifying€several€problems€inÌprotecting€product€configurations€using€trademark€law);€Glynn€S.€Ô_ÔLunneyÔ_Ô,ÌJr.,€The€Trade€Dress€Emperor's€New€Clothes:€Why€Trade€Dress€Does€Not€BelongÌon€the€Principle€Register,€51€Hastings€Ô_ÔL.J.Ô_Ô€1131,€1195€(2000)€(noting€thatÌthe€Ô_ÔLanhamÔ_Ô€Act€did€not€specifically€include€trade€dress,€and€the€courtsÌshould€follow€the€precedent€set€fourth€in€Wal-Mart,€and€limit€undueÌexpansion€of€trade€dress€protection);€Ô_ÔGrameÔ_Ô€B.€Ô_ÔDinwoodieÔ_Ô,€The€Death€ofÌOntology:€a€Teleological€Approach€to€Trademark€Law,€84€Iowa€L.€Rev.€611,Ì728€(1999)€(analyzing€the€functionality€component€of€trade€dress€law€andÌconcluding€that€the€protection€needed€could€be€reduced€significantly€byÌstricter€requirements€for€word€mark€labeling€of€the€copier's€product).ÌÌn54.€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô€Devices€Ô_ÔInc.v.Ô_Ô€Marketing€Displays€Inc.,€121€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€1255,€1261€(2001).ÌÌn55.€See€Ô_ÔInwoodÔ_Ô€Lab.,€Inc.€v.€Ives€Lab.,€Inc.,€456€U.S.€844,€853€(1982)€(holding€that€coloredÏmedicine€pills€were€not€Ô_ÔprotectableÔ_Ô€by€trademark€law,€because€the€customersÌidentified€the€content€and€quality€of€the€pills€by€these€features).ÌÌn56.€Ô_ÔTrafFixÔ_Ô,€121€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€at€1262.ÌÌn57.€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô,€514€U.S.€at166.€The€Court€emphasized€that€"the€green-gold€color€acts€as€aÏsymbol,"€and€"having€developed€secondary€meaning€(for€customers€identified€theÌgreen-gold€color€as€Ô_ÔQualitexÔ_Ô's),€it€identifies€the€press€pads'€source.€And,Ìthe€green-gold€color€servers€no€other€function."€Id.ÌÌn58.€See€McCarthy,€Ô_ÔsupranoteÔ_Ô€2€at€7.79-7.82€(suggesting€a€merely€ornamental€test,€andÏÔ_ÔexpressingtheÔ_Ô€view,€held€by€many,€that€the€aesthetic€functional€test€is€too€vague€andÌopen-ended);€Mitchell€M.€Wong,€Comment,€The€Aesthetic€FunctionalityÌDoctrine€and€the€Law€of€Trade€Dress€Protection,€83€Cornell€L.€Rev.€1116,Ì1165-67€(1998)€(urging€trademark€protection€where€there€is€only€trademarkÌsignificance,€and€no€aesthetical€role€for€a€product€design);€SpencerÌÔ_ÔDavczyÔ_Ô,€Comment,€Aesthetic€Functionality€in€Trade€Dress:€Post€SecondaryÌAesthetic€Functionality€Proposed,€105€Com.€Law€J.€309,€329-30€(2000)Ì(supporting€the€Wal-Mart€decision€requirement€for€secondary€meaning€andÐ ‹-(, Ðother€steps€using€the€aesthetic€functionality€principle€to€narrowÌprotection€of€trade€dress).ÌÌn59.€Wal-Mart€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Samara€Brothers,€Inc.,€529€U.S.€205,€214€(2000);€see€supra€textÌaccompanying€note€35€(discussing€the€significance€and€function€of€designÌpatents).ÌÌn60.€See€supra€Ô_ÔtextaccompanyingÔ_Ô€notes€53-59€(discussing€the€relationship€between€designÌpatents€and€the€functionality€test).ÌÌn61.€35€U.S.C.€171.ÌÌn62.€See€Fryer,€supra€note35,€at€339-41€(discussing€design€patent€statistics€with€respect€toÌapplication€pendency).ÌÌn63.€Agreement€on€Trade-Dress€Related€Aspects€of€Intellectual€Property€Rights,€IncludingÌTrade€in€Counterfeit€Goods,€Dec.€15,€1993,€art.€15,€33€Ô_ÔI.L.M.Ô_Ô€81,Ì[hereinafter€"TRIPS"],€available€atÌÔ_ÔhttpÔ_Ô://Ô_Ôwww.wto.orgÔ_Ô/Ô_ÔenglishÔ_Ô/Ô_ÔtratopeÔ_Ô/Ô_ÔtripseÔ_Ô/Ô_Ôtripse.htmÔ_Ô.ÌÌn64.€Commission€Regulation€2868/95€of€13€December€1995€on€Implementing€Council€RegulationÏ(Ô_ÔECÔ_Ô)€No€40/94€on€the€Community€Trademark,€1995€Ô_ÔO.J.Ô_Ô€(L303/1),€available€atÌhttp://www.wipo.ini€on€the€Library€page€in€the€Collection€of€Laws€forÌElectronic€Archive€(Ô_ÔCLEAÔ_Ô).ÌÌn65.€See€generally€TRIPS,€supra€note€63,€33€Ô_ÔI.L.M.Ô_Ô€81.ÌÌn66.€In€Ô_Ôparticular,articleÔ_Ô€15€of€TRIPS€states€in€part€that:Ìany€sign,€or€any€combination€of€signs,€capable€of€distinguishing€the€goodsÌor€services€of€one€undertaking€from€those€of€other€undertakings,€shall€beÌcapable€of€constituting€a€trademark.€Such€signs,€in€particularly€wordsÌincluding€personal€names,€letters,€numerals,€figurative€elements€andÌcombinations€of€Ô_ÔcoloursÔ_Ô€as€well€as€any€combination€of€such€signs,€shall€beÌeligible€for€registration€as€trademarks.€Where€signs€are€not€inherentlyÌcapable€of€distinguishing€the€relevant€goods€or€services,€Members€may€makeÌÔ_ÔregistrabilityÔ_Ô€depend€on€distinctiveness€acquired€through€use.€Members€mayÌrequire,€as€a€condition€of€registration,€that€signs€be€visuallyÌperceptible."€€TRIPS€supra,€note€63,€art.€15,€33€Ô_ÔI.L.M.Ô_Ô€at€89.ÌÌn67.€Id.ÌÌn68.€Council€Directive€89/104€of€21€December€1988€To€Approximate€the€Laws€of€the€MemberÏStates€Relating€to€Trademarks,€art.€2,€1989€Ô_ÔO.J.Ô_Ô€(L€40/1),€on€the€Ô_ÔWIPOÔ_Ô€LibraryÌpage€in€the€Collection€of€Laws€for€Electronic€Archive€(Ô_ÔCLEAÔ_Ô)Ìhttp://www.wipo.int€(last€visited€Aug.€29,€2001).Ð ‹-(, ЇSpecifically,€article€2€of€the€Council€Directive€states€that:Ì[a]€trademark€may€consist€of€any€sign€capable€of€being€representedÌgraphically,€particularly€words,€including€personal€names,€designs,Ìletters,€numerals,€the€shape€of€goods€or€of€their€packaging,€provided€thatÌsuch€signs€are€capable€of€distinguishing€the€goods€or€services€of€oneÌundertaking€from€those€of€other€undertakings.ññÌñññ ñ€ñ ñññÌññId.ÌÌn69.€Internationalñ ñÌñ ññ ñ€ñ ñAssociation€for€the€Protection€of€Intellectual€Property€[hereinafterÌÔ_ÔAIPPIÔ_Ô],€Executive€Committee€Meeting,€Ô_ÔSorrentoÔ_Ô,€Italy€(April€8-15,€2000),ÌThree-Dimensional€Marks:€The€Border€Line€Between€Trade€Marks€and€IndustrialÌDesign,€available€at€http://www.aippi.org€(last€visited€Aug.€29,€2001).ÌÌn70.€Council€Directive,€supra€note€68,€art.€3,€1989€Ô_ÔO.J.Ô_Ô€(L€40/1).€Specifically,€article€3,€GroundsÌfor€Refusal€or€Invalidity,€lists€several€important€exclusions€that€areÌbeyond€the€scope€of€this€paper,€however,€it€states€in€part€that:ÌThe€following€shall€not€be€registered€or€if€registered€shall€be€liable€toÌbe€declared€invalid;Ì(e)€signs€which€consist€exclusively€of:Ìthe€shape€which€results€from€the€nature€of€the€goods€themselves,€orÌthe€shape€of€goods€which€is€necessary€to€obtain€a€technical€result,€orÌthe€shape€which€gives€substantial€value€to€the€goods...€.€Id.ÌÌn71.€Commission€Regulation,€supra€note€64,€1995€Ô_ÔO.J.Ô_Ô€(L303/1).€See€Ruth€E.€Ô_ÔAnnandÔ_Ô€&€HelenÌE.€Norman,€Blackstone's€Guide€to€the€Community€Trade€Mark€21-59€(1998)Ì(providing€a€comprehensive€review€of€the€Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_Ô€system,€and€an€excellentÌin-depth€review€of€the€procedures€and€legal€interpretations€under€the€Ô_ÔCMTMÔ_ÔÌRegulation).ÌÌn72.€See€generally€Office€for€Harmonization€in€the€Internal€Market€(Trade€Marks€and€Designs),ÌDecisions€of€the€Boards€of€Appeal€in€2000,€at€http://www.oami.eu.int€(lastÌvisited€Sept.€23,€2000).€Take€note€of€the€First€Board€of€Appeal's€decisionÌon€March€8,€2000,€in€Case€R€512/1999-1,€on€an€application€filed€by€ProctorÌ&€Gamble€Company€for€a€three-dimensional€soap€container€shape€with€colorÌfeatures,€and€the€First€Board€of€Appeal's€decision€on€April€14,€2000,€inÌCase€R€179/1999-1,€on€an€application€filed€by€Telephone€Products,€Inc.€forÌthe€shape€of€electrical€connectors.€Id.€at€50,€86.€The€result€in€each€casesÌwas€the€same.€Id.€The€Board€affirmed€the€examiner's€decision,€which€heldÌthat€the€product€shapes€were€not€distinctive.€Id.ÌÌn73.€Ô_ÔAnnandÔ_Ô€&€Norman,€supra€note€71,€at€59;€Commission€Regulation,€supra€note€64,€art.€1,€ruleÌ52(2)€1995€Ô_ÔO.J.Ô_Ô€(L303/1).ÌÌn74.€See€generally€Ô_ÔAIPPIÔ_Ô,€supra€note€69,€Executive€Committee€Meeting,€Ô_ÔSorrentoÔ_Ô,€Italy€(AprilÏ8-15,€2000),€Summary€Report,€available€at€http://www.aippi.org.ÌÐ ‹-(, Ðn75.€See€17€U.S.C.€1301€et.€seq.€(2001)€(Ô_ÔVessellÔ_Ô€Hull€Design€Protection€Act).€See€also€William€TÏ.Fryer,€III,€The€Evolution€of€Market€Entry€Industrial€Design€Protection:€AnÌInternational€Comparative€Analysis,€21€Eur.€Ô_ÔIntellÔ_Ô.€Prop.€Rev.€618€(1999)Ì(discussing€17€Ô_ÔU.S.CÔ_Ô€1301€et.€seq.,€and€the€international€trend€withÌrespect€to€market€entry€product€appearance€protection).ÌÌÌEnd€of€DocumentÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌ