R.M. Smith, Inc., In re
| Decision Date | 22 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-556,84-556 |
| Citation | 222 USPQ 1,734 F.2d 1482 |
| Parties | In re R.M. SMITH, INC., et al. Appeal |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Thomas C. Wettach, Pittsburgh, Pa., argued for appellant.
Harris A. Pitlick, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Washington, D.C.
Before RICH, KASHIWA and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board), 219 USPQ 629, in application serial No. 306,511, filed April 20, 1981, sustaining the examiner's refusal to register to R.M. Smith, Inc. (Smith) its product configuration on the Principal Register for "WATER NOZZLES." We affirm.
Smith seeks to register as a trademark the overall appearance of its pistol grip water nozzle shown below. The reference letters and numerals are not part of the mark. The letters A-F point to features which, collectively, Smith says comprise its mark, the numerals 1 and 2 to obviously utilitarian features Smith does not rely on.
A detailed description of the "independent and distinctive design features," set forth by Smith, which comprise its alleged mark is included in the board's opinion, familiarity with which will be presumed. In short, Smith seeks registration as a trademark of the appearance created by the combined use of these six specific "design elements" which it concedes are used in various sub-combinations by the industry.
The PTO Trademark Attorney (erstwhile examiner), refused registration on the ground that the configuration sought to be registered is functional, is similar to the designs of many other nozzles, not particularly unusual, and has not been shown by evidence to have been promoted as a trademark.
The board's well reasoned opinion dealt with whether the configuration sought to be registered is de jure functional and, if not, whether the design is distinctive, i.e., an indication of source or origin. It considered the six features which Smith claims comprise its alleged mark and found them highly functional. The board concluded that "the entire configuration of applicant's water nozzle is de jure functional." The board said that to allow
[a] registration of the instant configuration without any formal description of applicant's mark or explanation of the elements which applicant claims function as its mark would, we believe, hinder competitors who would not know if the features which they are using in their products, whose overall configurations are not dissimilar from that of the applicant, subject them to a suit for trademark infringement.
The primary issue is whether the subject matter sought to be registered--the configuration of Smith's pistol grip water nozzle--is de jure functional.
Smith raises additional issues as to an alleged presumption of distinctiveness based on eight years of continuous and exclusive use, and on an expired design patent.
OPINIONThe arguments on appeal are essentially the same as those before the board and the examiner. First, Smith argues that the board failed to make a prima facie case of de jure functionality.
The board started its analysis stating "some consideration should be given to the six features which applicant claims comprise its mark." Smith argues that the board incorrectly based its decision on a review of these independent parts rather than the mark as a whole. To the contrary, the board, "cognizant of the admonition" of this court in In re Teledyne Industries, Inc., 696 F.2d 968, 217 USPQ 9 (Fed.Cir.1982), proceeded to initially review the six features claimed by Smith to comprise its mark. Upon consideration of the entire design, the board found that not only were those features themselves highly functional, except perhaps for the ribs, but that the drawing as a whole included various other highly functional elements, i.e., the clip lock (1), and adjustable nut (2). Based on the functionality of the individual features comprising the design, the board concluded that the design as a whole was de jure functional.
We agree with the board that the PTO attorney established a prima facie case of de jure functionality. Smith, to prevail, must rebut this prima facie case with competent evidence. Teledyne, supra, 696 F.2d at 971, 217 USPQ at 11.
Smith, in an attempt to meet its burden, states in its brief:
[T]he Board did acknowledge that none of the competitors' nozzles (before it) had all of the predominate [sic] design features of Appellant's nozzle. That is tantamount to admitting that none of the competitive nozzles looks like Appellant's nozzle. [Emphasis ours.]
* * *
[T]he board never concluded, nor could it, that Appellant's design was confusingly similar to any of the competing models. After all, isn't that the Lanham Act test for refusing to register?
* * *
As to the ability of competitors to determine whether they infringe, it is presumptuous of the Board to suggest that they could not determine when their overall design was confusingly similar or likely to be confusingly similar.
Smith's arguments, directed to likelihood of confusion and ability to avoid infringement, totally fail to meet the rejection, which was based on functionality.
Brief mention of the policy underlying the law of de jure functionality is in order. The seminal case on functionality, as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp.
...functional means that the design of a product has a function, i.e., a bottle of any design holds fluid." In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484, 222 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed.Cir.1984). De facto functionality does not necessarily defeat registrability. Morton-Norwich, 671 F.2d at 1337, 213 USPQ a......
-
Petersen Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Central Purchasing, Inc.
...category of a non-protectable shape (i.e., de jure functional) merely because it includes some arbitrary features. In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482 at 1484 (Fed.Cir.1984). On the other hand, particular features may become an indication of source even though the entire product shape doe......
-
In re Becton, Dickinson & Co.
...Co., 48 CCPA 952, 289 F.2d 496, 506 (1961), in which the design was judged “in essence utilitarian.” In In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court reiterated the importance of the “degree of utility” proposition, and explained how the distinction between de facto......
-
Chrysler Corp. v. Vanzant, ED CV 94-0049 RT (CTx).
...significance because of the mere existence of utility; rather it should depend on the degree of design utility. In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484 (Fed.Cir.1984). A Coca-Cola bottle is an ideal example. The bottle is utilitarian in that it holds liquid, yet the fluting design on th......
-
Stretching Trademark Laws To Protect Product Design And Packaging
...have limited its application drawing to arbitrary and nonfunctional features, with the unclaimed features shown in dotted lines), aff'd, 734 F.2d 1482 (Fed. Cir. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 29 (2001). Id. at 34. Eco Mfg. LLC v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 357 F.3d......
-
The trouble with trade dress protection of product design.
...better in this shape.'" Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 35 F.3d 1527, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting In re R. M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[D]e jure functionality rests on `utility,' which is determined in light of `superiority of design,' and rests upon ......
-
Trends Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
...& Co. , 675 F.3d at 1374; Textron, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 753 F.2d 1019, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 18. In re E.R. Shaw, Inc., Serial No. 85797528, slip op. at 2–3 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2015) (nonprecedential). 19. Design pat......
-
CHAPTER 11 - § 11.02
...MCCARTHY, supra chap. 1, note 2, at § 7:69 (citing Antioch, 347 F.3d at 150, 155-56).[45] Id. at § 7:69 (citing In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("In essence, de facto functional means that the design of a product has a function, i.e., a bottle of any design hold......
-
CHAPTER 6 - § 6.02
...citing Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995).[31] Id. at 1274.[32] Id.[33] Id. citing In re R. M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484, 222 U.S.P.Q. 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1984).[34] Id. citing Morton-Norwich, 671 F.2d at 1337, 213 U.S.P.Q. at 13 (a design that is de facto func......