Specialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Industries, L.P.
96 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1580, 616 F.3d 722, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17015 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product design that is functional cannot be protected as a trademark or trade dress, even if the mark has achieved "incontestable" status, particularly when the design features are covered by expired utility patents.
Facts:
- For over 80 years, Greenwich Industries, L.P. (doing business as Clarin) manufactured x-frame folding chairs.
- Between 1926 and 1964, Clarin acquired four utility patents related to various aspects of x-frame chair designs.
- In 1999, Clarin applied for a trademark registration for a specific x-frame folding chair design, and the Patent and Trademark Office issued Registration No. 2,803,875 in January 2004.
- Harvey Hergott, Clarin’s former general manager, left in 1993 and later joined Specialized Seating, Inc. in 2001, a company founded by his son Alfred that directly competed with Clarin.
- Specialized Seating manufactured and sold a folding chair whose basic x-frame design was similar to Clarin's registered trademark chair.
- The 'b-back' design, incorporated into Clarin's trademark, was a functional improvement over an older 'a-back' design, created to increase strength and prevent buckling when users sat on the chairs' backs.
- During the trademark application process, Clarin represented to the examiner that the design was chosen for aesthetic reasons and disclosed only one of its prior patents, omitting three other utility patents that covered aspects of the x-frame design.
Procedural Posture:
- Specialized Seating, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Greenwich Industries, L.P. (Clarin) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking a declaratory judgment that its chair design did not infringe Clarin's trademark.
- Clarin counterclaimed against Specialized Seating, Inc. for an injunction based on trademark infringement.
- The district court held a bench trial and subsequently ruled in favor of Specialized Seating, Inc., finding Clarin's trademark design to be functional and the registration to have been obtained fraudulently.
- Clarin appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (No. 07-1435).
- The Seventh Circuit noted that the district court had failed to enter a proper declaratory judgment, which led the court to question appellate jurisdiction, and instructed the parties to return to the district court to rectify this error.
- The district court then issued a proper declaratory judgment.
- Clarin filed a new appeal (No. 10-2670) from the properly entered judgment, which was consolidated with the initial appeal before the Seventh Circuit.
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 folding chair design, the features of which are functional and were previously covered by expired utility patents, qualify for trademark protection even if the mark has achieved "incontestable" status?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Easterbrook
No, a folding chair design that is functional and whose features are covered by expired utility patents cannot be protected as a trademark, even if the mark is incontestable. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Clarin's x-frame chair design was functional. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that functionality is a question of fact, subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. Citing TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., the court noted that claims in an expired utility patent presumptively are functional, as utility patents are restricted to inventions with practical utility, and allowing trademark protection would improperly extend patent monopolies. Clarin itself held four utility patents for aspects of its x-frame designs. The court found that every significant aspect of Clarin's design, including the improved 'b-back,' was functional, meaning it was designed to enhance the chair's performance (e.g., strength-to-weight ratio, stability, ease of setup) rather than primarily to identify its source. The functionality doctrine serves to separate patent and trademark law, ensuring that utilitarian inventions enter the public domain upon patent expiration to foster competition and reduce consumer prices. Because the finding of functionality fully defeated the trademark claim, the court deemed it unnecessary to decide whether Clarin committed fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office, noting that such a finding, not being essential to the judgment, would not have preclusive effect in future litigation.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between patent and trademark law, emphasizing that trademark protection cannot be used to indefinitely extend a monopoly over functional product features after utility patents expire. The decision highlights that features disclosed in an expired utility patent are presumptively functional and thus ineligible for trade dress or trademark protection. By upholding the functionality defense even for an "incontestable" mark, the court ensures that competition is promoted by allowing other firms to freely copy utilitarian product designs once patent protection lapses. This case serves as a crucial reminder for businesses to carefully consider the nature of their product features when seeking intellectual property protection, particularly for designs driven by utility rather than source identification.
