Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corporation
278 F.3d 1268 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product design is unregistrable as a trademark under the functionality doctrine if it is de jure functional for even a single, competitively significant application within its recited identification of goods, even if other non-functional uses exist.
Facts:
- Valu Engineering, Inc. ('Valu') developed and manufactured conveyor guide rails used to keep objects from falling off conveyor belts.
- Valu created rails with three distinct cross-sectional shapes: ROUND, FLAT, and TEE.
- A primary and significant application for these guide rails is in the 'wet areas' of bottling and canning plants, which are frequently washed with corrosive solutions.
- The specific shapes of Valu's guide rails provided utilitarian advantages in these wet, corrosive environments.
- Valu previously filed an (ultimately abandoned) utility patent application that described the utilitarian advantages of the guide rail shapes.
- Valu's advertising materials also touted the utilitarian advantages and superior performance of its guide rail designs.
Procedural Posture:
- Valu Engineering, Inc. filed three trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for its conveyor guide rail designs.
- The USPTO Examining Attorney approved the applications.
- Rexnord Corporation filed oppositions to the registrations with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), a specialized administrative court.
- The TTAB sustained Rexnord's opposition, finding the designs de jure functional and thus unregistrable, but denied Rexnord's separate claims of inequitable conduct.
- Valu (as appellant) appealed the TTAB's functionality ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- Rexnord (as appellee) filed a cross-appeal on the TTAB's denial of its inequitable conduct claims.
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 the functionality doctrine render a product design unregistrable as a trademark if the design is proven to be functional for only a single, competitively significant application, rather than for all possible uses encompassed by the applicant's broad identification of goods?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Dyk
Yes, a product design is unregistrable if it is functional for a single, competitively significant application. The court reasoned that the core policy of the functionality doctrine is to preserve competition and maintain the boundary between patent law (which protects useful inventions for a limited time) and trademark law (which protects source identifiers indefinitely). To allow a trademark on a feature that is functional in a key market would inhibit legitimate competition in that market, even if the feature were merely ornamental in other, less significant markets. Therefore, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board was correct to confine its functionality analysis to the competitively significant 'wet areas' of bottling plants. Requiring an analysis of the 'entire universe' of potential uses would undermine the doctrine and encourage applicants to draft overly broad descriptions of goods to circumvent a functionality refusal. The court affirmed that the four-factor test from In re Morton-Norwich remains the proper framework for analysis and found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that Valu's designs were de jure functional based on that test.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the functionality analysis in trademark law can be narrowly focused on a single, competitively significant market segment. It relieves challengers from the burden of proving a design is functional across all conceivable uses, thereby strengthening the functionality doctrine as a defense against attempts to monopolize useful product features through trademark law. The ruling clarifies the boundary between patent and trademark protection, preventing trademark law from being used as an 'end run' around the limited duration of utility patents. Consequently, applicants for trademarks on product configurations with multiple uses must now consider the risk that functionality in one key area can render the entire design unregistrable for a broad category of goods.
