颜色商标美国夸克斯案.doc

115 S.Ct. 1300FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLYPage 1514 U.S. 159, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248, 63 USLW 4227, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161(Cite as: 514 U.S. 159, 115 S.Ct. 1300)© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.115 S.Ct. 1300FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLYPage 13514 U.S. 159, 115 S.Ct. 1300, 131 L.Ed.2d 248, 63 USLW 4227, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161(Cite as: 514 U.S. 159, 115 S.Ct. 1300)Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc.U.S.Cal.,1995.Supreme Court of the United StatesQUALITEX CO.v.JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO., INC.No. 93-1577.Argued Jan. 9, 1995.Decided March 28, 1995.Manufacturer of press pads used in dry cleaning and laundry establishments brought action against competitor, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Harry L. Hupp, J., entered judgment for manufacturer, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that green-gold color of manufacturer's press pad was not subject to trademark protection, 13 F.3d 1297, and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Justice Breyer, held that: (1) no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as trademark, and (2) green-gold color of manufacturer's dry cleaning press pads could be registered as trademark.Reversed.West Headnotes1 Trademarks 382T 1057(2)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1050 Format or Components of Term or Mark 382Tk1057 Nonliteral Elements 382Tk1057(2) k. Color. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44)Sometimes, color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements; when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as trademark. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § § 1-45, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 1051-1127.2 Trademarks 382T 1057(2)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1050 Format or Components of Term or Mark 382Tk1057 Nonliteral Elements 382Tk1057(2) k. Color. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44, 382k11)There is no theoretical objection to use of color alone as trademark, where color has attained “secondary meaning,” and therefore identifies and distinguishes particular brand, and thus indicates source. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § § 1-45, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 1051-1127.3 Trademarks 382T 1064382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1061 Form, Features, or Design of Product as Marks; Trade Dress 382Tk1064 k. Functionality. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k4)“Functionality doctrine” prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting firm's reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing producer to control useful product feature. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § § 1-45, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 1051-1127.4 Trademarks 382T 1064382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1061 Form, Features, or Design of Product as Marks; Trade Dress 382Tk1064 k. Functionality. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k43)Generally, product feature is functional, and could not serve as trademark, if it is essential to use or purpose of article or if it affects cost or quality of article, that is, if exclusive use of feature would put competitors at significant nonreputation-related disadvantage. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § § 1-45, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 1051-1127.5 Trademarks 382T 1057(2)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1050 Format or Components of Term or Mark 382Tk1057 Nonliteral Elements 382Tk1057(2) k. Color. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44) Trademarks 382T 1064382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1061 Form, Features, or Design of Product as Marks; Trade Dress 382Tk1064 k. Functionality. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44)Doctrine of functionality does not create absolute bar to use of color alone as a trademark. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § § 1-45, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 1051-1127.6 Trademarks 382T 1057(2)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1050 Format or Components of Term or Mark 382Tk1057 Nonliteral Elements 382Tk1057(2) k. Color. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44) Trademarks 382T 1065(3)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1061 Form, Features, or Design of Product as Marks; Trade Dress 382Tk1065 Particular Cases or Products 382Tk1065(3) k. Functionality. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44)Green-gold color of manufacturer's dry cleaning press pads could be registered as trademark; color had developed secondary meaning, since customers identified color as manufacturer's, and color served no other function. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § § 1-45, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 1051-1127.7 Trademarks 382T 1057(2)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1050 Format or Components of Term or Mark 382Tk1057 Nonliteral Elements 382Tk1057(2) k. Color. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44)Possible uncertainty as to what shades of color competitors could use did not preclude use of color as trademark. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § § 1-45, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 1051-1127.8 Trademarks 382T 1057(2)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1050 Format or Components of Term or Mark 382Tk1057 Nonliteral Elements 382Tk1057(2) k. Color. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44)Limited number of colors that could be used as trademark did not preclude use of color as trademark. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § § 1-45, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 1051-1127.9 Trademarks 382T 1064382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1061 Form, Features, or Design of Product as Marks; Trade Dress 382Tk1064 k. Functionality. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44)Where color serves significant nontrademark function, courts will examine whether its use as a mark would permit one competitor, or a group, to interfere with legitimate, nontrademark-related competition through actual or potential exclusive use of important product ingredient; that examination should not discourage firms from creating aesthetically pleasing mark designs, for it is open to their competitors to do the same. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § § 1-45, 15 U.S.C.A. § § 1051-1127.10 Trademarks 382T 1057(2)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1050 Format or Components of Term or Mark 382Tk1057 Nonliteral Elements 382Tk1057(2) k. Color. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44)Lanham Act's changes have left courts free to evaluate preexisting legal precedent which had absolutely forbidden use of color alone as trademark. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 45, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1127.11 Trademarks 382T 1057(2)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1050 Format or Components of Term or Mark 382Tk1057 Nonliteral Elements 382Tk1057(2) k. Color. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k44) Trademarks 382T 1065(1)382T Trademarks 382TII Marks Protected 382Tk1061 Form, Features, or Design of Product as Marks; Trade Dress 382Tk1065 Particular Cases or Products 382Tk1065(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 382k43)Availability of “trade dress” protection did not preclude use of color alone as trademark. Lanham Trade-Mark Act, § 43(a), 15 U.S.C.(1988 Ed.) § 1125(a).*1301 Syllabus FN*FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.*159 Petitioner Qualitex Company has for years colored the dry cleaning press pads it manufactures with a special shade of green gold. After respondent Jacobson Products (a Qualitex rival) began to use a similar shade on its own press pads, Qualitex registered its color as a trademark and added a trademark infringement count to the suit it had previously filed challenging Jacobson's use of the green-gold color. Qualitex won in the District Court, but the Ninth Circuit set aside the judgment on the infringement claim because, in its view, the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) does not permit registration of color alone as a trademark.Held: The Lanham Act permits the registration of a trademark that consists, purely and simply, of a color. Pp. 1302-1308.(a) That color alone can meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark is demonstrated both by the language of the Act, which describes the universe of things that can qualify as a trademark in the broadest of terms, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, and by the underlying principles of trademark law, including the requirements that the mark “identify and distinguish the seller's goods . from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate their source,”ibid., and that it not be “functional,” see, e.g., Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850, n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 2186, n. 10, 72 L.Ed.2d 606. The District Court's findings (accepted by the Ninth Circuit and here undisputed) show Qualitex's green-gold color has met these requirements. It acts as a symbol. Because customers identify the color as Qualitex's, it has developed secondary meaning, see, e.g., id., at 851, n. 11, 102 S.Ct., at 2187, n. 11, and thereby identifies the press pads' source. And, the color serves no other function. (Although it is important to use some color on press pads to avoid noticeable stains, the court found no competitive need in the industry for the green-gold color, since other colors are equally usable.) Accordingly, unless there is some special reason that convincingly militates against the use of color alone as a trademark, trademark law protects Qualitex's use of its green-gold color. Pp. 1302-1305.(b) Jacobson's various special reasons why the law should forbid the use of color alone as a trademark-that a contrary holding (1) will produce uncertainty and unresolvable court disputes about what shades of a color a competitor may lawfully use; (2) is *1302 unworkable in light of *160 the limited supply of colors that will soon be depleted by competitors; (3) is contradicted by many older cases, including decisions of this Court interpreting pre-Lanham Act trademark law; and (4) is unnecessary because firms already may use color as part of a trademark and may rely on “trade dress” protection-are unpersuasive. Pp. 1305-1308.13 F.3d 1297 (C.A.9 1994), reversed.BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.Donald G. Mulack, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, DC, for U.S., as amicus curiae by special leave of the Court.Laurence D. Strick, Beverly Hills, CA, for respondent.For U.S. Supreme Court briefs, see:1994 WL 630078 (Pet.Brief)1994 WL 687525 (Resp.Brief)1994 WL 708003 (Reply Brief)Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.1 The question in this case is whether the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 15 U.S.C. § § 1051-1127 (1988 ed. and Supp. V), permits the registration of a trademark that consists,*161 purely and simply, of a color. We conclude that, sometimes, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements. And, when it does so, no special legal rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark.IThe case before us grows out of petitioner Qualitex Company's use (since the 1950's) of a special shade of green-gold color on the pads that it makes and sells to dry cleaning firms for use on dry cleaning presses. In 1989, respondent Jacobson Products (a Qualitex rival) began to sell its own press pads to dry cleaning firms; and it colored those pads a similar green gold. In 1991, Qualitex registered the special green-gold color on press pads with the Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark. Registration No. 1,633,711 (Feb. 5, 1991). Qualitex subsequently added a trademark infringement count, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), to an unfair competition claim, § 1125(a), in a lawsuit it had already filed challenging Jacobson's use of the green-gold color.Qualitex won the lawsuit in the District Court. 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1457, 1991 WL 318798 (CD Cal.1991). But, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set aside the judgment in Qualitex's favor on the trademark infringement claim because, in that Circuit's view, the Lanham Act does not permit Qualitex, or anyone else, to register “color alone” as a trademark. 13 F.3d 1297, 1300, 1302 (1994).The Courts of Appeals have differed as to whether or not the law recognizes the use of color alone as a trademark. Compare NutraSweet Co. v. Stadt Corp., 917 F.2d 1024, 1028 (CA7 1990) (absolute prohibition against protection of color alone), with In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 1128 (CA Fed.1985) (allowing registration of color pink for fiberglass insulation), and Master Distributors, Inc. v. Pako Corp., 986 F.2d 219, 224 (CA8 1993) (declining to establish per se prohibition against protecting color alone as a trademark). Therefore, this Court granted certiorari. *162512 U.S. 1287, 115 S.Ct. 40, 129 L.Ed.2d 935 (1994). We now hold that there is no rule absolutely barring the use of color alone, and we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.IIThe Lanham Act gives a seller or producer the exclusive right to “register” a trademark, 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (1988 ed. and Supp. V), and to prevent his or her competitors from using that trademark, § 1114(1). Both the language of the Act and the basic underlying principles of trademark law would seem to include color within the universe of things that can qualify as a trademark. The language of the Lanham Act describes that universe in the broadest of terms. It says that trademarks “include any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof.” § 1127. Since human beings might use as a “symbol” or “device” almost anything at *1303 all that is capable of carrying meaning, this language, read literally, is not restrictive. The courts and the Patent and Trademark Office have authorized for use as a mark a particular shape (of a Coca-Cola bottle), a particular sound (of NBC's three chimes), and even a particular scent (of plumeria blossoms on sewing thread). See, e.g., Registration No. 696,147 (Apr. 12, 1960); Registration Nos. 523,616 (Apr. 4, 1950) and 916,522 (July 13, 1971); In re Clarke, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1238, 1240 (TTAB 1990). If a shape, a sound, and