Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Rogers Imports, Inc.
216 F. Supp. 670 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer cannot prevent a competitor from copying the functional features of a product, even if those features have acquired secondary meaning. However, if there is a likelihood of consumer confusion, the competitor must take reasonable steps to distinguish its product from the original.
Facts:
- Since 1932, Zippo Manufacturing Company has produced a popular pocket lighter with a distinctive rectangular shape, a hinged flip-top, and a perforated windscreen.
- Zippo extensively advertised its lighters, spent millions of dollars on marketing, and offered an unconditional lifetime guarantee with free repair service.
- The original design of the Zippo lighter was covered by a patent which expired in 1953.
- Over the years, Zippo made changes to the lighter's design, such as rounding its corners, for reasons of manufacturing economy and efficiency.
- In 1957, Rogers, Inc., began importing and selling Japanese-made lighters that were nearly identical in shape and appearance to Zippo's lighters, but at a significantly lower price.
- Zippo introduced a narrower 'slim-lighter' model in 1956, which Rogers also began copying and selling in 1957.
- Following the introduction of the Rogers lighter, numerous consumers mistakenly sent Rogers lighters to Zippo for repair under Zippo's free repair policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Zippo Manufacturing Company sued Rogers, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Zippo's complaint alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- Rogers, Inc. filed a counterclaim against Zippo, alleging unfair competition.
- The case proceeded to a trial before the district court.
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 manufacturer engage in unfair competition by marketing a product that copies the functional physical features of a competitor's product, where those features have acquired secondary meaning and are likely to cause consumer confusion?
Opinions:
Majority - Feinberg, District Judge.
No, a manufacturer does not engage in enjoinable unfair competition by copying functional features, but it may be required to take steps to mitigate consumer confusion. Plaintiff Zippo failed to prove that the copied features of its lighter are non-functional, which is a required element to obtain an injunction against copying. The court analyzed functionality broadly, defining a feature as functional if it affects the product's purpose, performance, or the economy of its manufacture or use. Zippo's windscreen and hole pattern were found to be functional because they protect the flame while being cheap to produce. The lighter's external shape, including the rounded corners, was also deemed functional because the changes from the original, expired patented design were made for manufacturing efficiency. Because the features are functional, Rogers is free to copy them. However, Zippo successfully proved that its standard lighter's appearance had acquired secondary meaning and that Rogers' copy created a likelihood of confusion, as evidenced by consumer surveys and misdirected repair requests. Therefore, while Rogers cannot be stopped from selling the lighter, it must take reasonable steps to differentiate its product by making its name more prominent on display cards and potentially adding a disclaimer.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its detailed analysis of the functionality doctrine in unfair competition law, adopting a broad definition that includes not just utilitarian purpose but also manufacturing efficiency. It establishes that even where strong evidence of secondary meaning and consumer confusion exists, the public's interest in free competition allows for the copying of functional product features, especially those previously disclosed in an expired patent. The decision also serves as a foundational case on the admissibility and weight of consumer survey evidence to prove secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion. The court's remedy, requiring labeling changes rather than an injunction against copying, demonstrates a judicial balancing act between protecting established brands and fostering a competitive marketplace.
