TBL Licensing, LLC v. Katherine Vidal
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1150, Doc: 60, Filed: 04/15/2024 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To register product design trade dress, an applicant must demonstrate that the specific features claimed have acquired secondary meaning, meaning the consuming public identifies those particular features as exclusively indicating the product's single source.
Facts:
- TBL Licensing, LLC, commonly known as Timberland, has sold a popular boot for decades.
- In May 2015, TBL applied to the USPTO to register certain features of its boot's design as trade dress, including the external appearance of a tube-shaped ankle collar, two-tone outsoles with inverted tooth-shaped cuts, an hourglass-shaped rear heel panel, quad-stitching forming an inverted 'U' shape around the vamp line, and hexagonal eyelets, along with a bulbous toe box.
- TBL's application explicitly excluded other well-known features of its boot, such as the prominent wheat-yellow color and its tree logo, from the claimed design.
- TBL spent over $81 million on marketing the boot in the U.S. across various media from 2013 through 2021.
- The Timberland boot generated over $1 billion in sales from 2013 through 2021.
- The Timberland boot has appeared in various forms of unsolicited media coverage, including television, movies, music, publications, and social media posts.
- The market contains numerous boots from other manufacturers that feature designs substantially similar to those claimed by TBL.
- In a previous, unsuccessful trade dress application for the wheat-yellow color, TBL officers had stated under oath that only the boot's color allowed for its identification as a Timberland product.
Procedural Posture:
- TBL Licensing, LLC applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register specific aspects of its boot's design as trade dress.
- The USPTO's examining attorney refused to register the design, finding it to be functional and not distinctive.
- TBL appealed the examining attorney's decision to the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
- The TTAB affirmed the examining attorney's refusal, finding the design lacked distinctiveness.
- TBL challenged the TTAB's decision in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, naming the USPTO and its Director as defendants.
- After discovery, TBL and the USPTO cross-moved for summary judgment, agreeing to allow the district court to resolve any factual disputes.
- The district court (Senior District Judge Claude M. Hilton) granted the USPTO's motion for summary judgment and denied TBL's cross-motion, finding the design functional and lacking distinctiveness, and dismissed the case.
- TBL, as the plaintiff-appellant, timely appealed that final decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the USPTO and its Director as defendants-appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court clearly err in finding that the specific design features of a boot, as precisely claimed in TBL Licensing's trade dress application, had not acquired secondary meaning, thereby preventing registration under the Lanham Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Quattlebaum
No, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the limited design features TBL Licensing sought to register had not acquired a distinctive meaning, preventing registration as trade dress. The court emphasized that for product design features to be registered as trade dress, they must have acquired 'secondary meaning,' meaning the public perceives the specific claimed features as identifying the product's source, not merely as desirable functional or aesthetic aspects. This is a formidable burden of proof, reviewed for clear error. The district court correctly focused its inquiry on the specific design features TBL claimed in its application, not the entire, perhaps iconic, boot. The court found several flaws in TBL's evidence. The consumer survey was problematic because it used grayscale photographs that subtly suggested the boot's well-known wheat-yellow color (an unclaimed feature) and a question progression that might have nudged respondents to name only one company. Regarding advertising expenditures, the court noted that while TBL spent vast sums, its advertisements typically depicted the entire boot, including the unclaimed wheat-yellow color and tree logo, and did not specifically highlight or call attention to the claimed design features as source identifiers. Similarly, the boot's substantial sales success was not deemed probative because TBL failed to show that customers bought the boots because they associated the claimed design features with Timberland, rather than for aesthetic appeal, functionality, or other unclaimed branding. Unsolicited media coverage also predominantly featured the entire boot, often showcasing the prominent unclaimed color and logo, and prior sworn statements by TBL officers even 'undercut' its current position by attributing identification solely to the color. As for attempts to plagiarize, the court reiterated that imitation only evidences secondary meaning if the intent is to deceive consumers about the product's source, not simply to copy desirable functional or aesthetic features; TBL provided no evidence of such intent. Finally, the widespread presence of substantially similar boots from other manufacturers in the market undermined TBL's claim of 'exclusive use' of the claimed design features, further weakening its assertion of secondary meaning. Based on these factors, the district court's finding that TBL failed to meet its rigorous burden was not clearly erroneous.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high evidentiary bar for establishing secondary meaning for product design trade dress, particularly when an applicant seeks to protect only a subset of features from a globally recognized product. It emphasizes that general brand recognition, extensive advertising, or sales success of the overall product are insufficient; instead, the applicant must demonstrate that the specific claimed features have, through use, come to be uniquely associated with the source in the minds of the consuming public, separate from other branding or the product's inherent appeal. The ruling underscores the importance of 'look-for' advertising and the challenge posed by similar third-party designs, highlighting that courts will strictly scrutinize the intent behind any alleged copying to distinguish between legitimate competitive emulation and source confusion.
