Deere & Co. v. Farmhand, Inc.
217 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 252, 560 F. Supp. 85, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17413 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product feature, including a color or overall design, is considered functional and cannot be protected under the Lanham Act if it is essential to the product's use or purpose, affects its cost or quality, or is a feature that has come to be valued by consumers for its aesthetic appeal rather than as an indicator of source.
Facts:
- Deere & Company (Deere) has used a specific shade of green, known as 'John Deere green,' as the predominant color on its farm equipment since at least 1955.
- In 1972, Deere introduced its Models 148 and 158 front-end loaders, which were custom-fit for its 'Generation II' tractors.
- Farmhand, Inc. (Farmhand), a manufacturer of farm equipment attachments, historically produced red, universal-fit loaders.
- Around 1977, Farmhand began producing its F-248 and F-258 loader models, which were custom-fit for Deere tractors.
- Farmhand painted these new custom-fit loaders the exact same shade of green as Deere's equipment and incorporated several similar design features.
- Evidence established that farmers have a strong preference to match the color of their front-end loaders with the color of their tractors for aesthetic reasons.
- The design features of the Deere loader, such as the shape of the mast and mounting frame, were dictated primarily by utilitarian engineering considerations to distribute stress and optimize performance.
- Farmhand copied the design of the Deere loaders after studying them to determine if it could build a competitive product.
Procedural Posture:
- Deere & Company filed a lawsuit against Farmhand, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the court of first instance.
- Deere's complaint alleged violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and common law unfair competition.
- Farmhand filed a counterclaim alleging that Deere's lawsuit constituted an attempt to monopolize the market for loaders in violation of federal antitrust laws.
- The case was tried to the court, sitting without a jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a competitor's use of a particular color and product configuration constitute unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act when the color is aesthetically functional and the configuration is utilitarianly functional?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Brien, District Judge
No. Farmhand's use of 'John Deere green' and a similar loader configuration does not constitute unfair competition because those features are functional. To prevail on a claim of unfair competition for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must prove that the features are (1) nonfunctional, (2) have acquired a secondary meaning, and (3) that the defendant's use is likely to cause consumer confusion. Here, Deere failed on all three elements. The court found the loader's design features were utilitarianly functional, as they were based on sound engineering principles, not arbitrary design choices for identification. More significantly, the court applied the doctrine of 'aesthetic functionality' to the color, finding that because farmers prefer to match their loaders to their tractors, the color green is an important ingredient in the commercial success of a loader sold for a Deere tractor. Protecting the color would therefore hinder competition. Deere also failed to establish secondary meaning, as its survey evidence did not prove that consumers associated the color or design with a single source. Finally, given the sophistication of farmers as buyers, the prominent labeling of Farmhand's products, and the absence of actual confusion, the court found no likelihood of confusion.
Analysis:
This case is a key example of the application of the functionality doctrine, particularly 'aesthetic functionality,' as a defense to a trade dress infringement claim. The court's decision establishes that features that are desirable to consumers for reasons independent of source identification—such as the ability to color-match products—are not protectable. This precedent limits the ability of manufacturers to claim a monopoly over a color or design when that feature is a significant driver of consumer choice for aesthetic or compatibility reasons. It reinforces the principle that the Lanham Act protects against consumer confusion about a product's origin, not against legitimate competition based on copying desirable, unpatented product features.
