(Redirected from Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. )
1995 United States Supreme Court caseQualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 9, 1995 Full case name Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. Citations 514 U.S. 159 (more L. Ed. 2d 248; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 2408; 63 U.S.L.W. 4227; 34 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA ) 1161; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2249; 95 Daily Journal DAR 3867; 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 653 Case history Prior C.D. Cal. found for plaintiff, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21172; judgment set aside by the Ninth Circuit, 13 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1994), reversed Holding Under the Lanham Act, a color can be registered as a trademark. Individual colors, however, cannot be deemed "inherently distinctive," so the registrant must demonstrate that the color has acquired "secondary meaning" in consumers' minds as indicating the source of the registrant's goods. Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion Majority Breyer, joined by unanimous Laws applied Lanham Act
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a color could meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act , provided that it has acquired secondary meaning in the market.
Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Qualitex Co. had used a green -gold color for dry cleaning "press pads" which it sold to dry cleaning firms to use in their presses. Defendant Jacobson Products Co. was a rival of Qualitex. In 1989, Jacobson began selling their own pads to dry cleaners which were a similar color to those of Qualitex. In response, Qualitex filed a lawsuit against Jacobson in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for unfair competition . In 1991, Qualitex registered the green-gold color of its pads with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark, and subsequently added a trademark infringement count to its lawsuit. The District Court found for Qualitex, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set aside the judgment , on the grounds that color alone could not be registered as a trademark.
Decision
Justice Breyer , writing for a unanimous 9-0 court, overturned the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that the Lanham Act was very broad in its definition of what a trademark could be. The definition section of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 , defines trademarks as including "any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof". Breyer reasoned that colors could constitute descriptive trademarks, because while colors do not automatically evoke a connection to any product by themselves, they could take on secondary meaning over time, in the course of use in the marketplace . In this way, a color could serve the chief purpose of trademarks, that of identifying the source of a particular product.
Breyer also determined that the functionality doctrine was no bar to the registration of the plaintiff's color as a trademark. He determined that a product feature is only functional "if it is essential to the purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article". 514 U.S. at 165.
Although sometimes color plays an important role (unrelated to source identification) in making a product more desirable, sometimes it does not. And, this latter fact—the fact that sometimes color is not essential to a product's use or purpose and does not affect cost or quality—indicates that the doctrine of "functionality" does not create an absolute bar to the use of color alone as a mark.
The color in this case acted purely as a symbol , and served no other purpose. Jacobson argued that there are only a limited number of colors that could be used for the products at issue here, and that many colors are very similar looking, but Breyer dismissed this concern, saying that if the defendant’s concerns were proven to be valid, the functionality doctrine would then come into play. Breyer further held that a color could be trademarked separately from any trade dress protection.
See also
References
"Qualitex - World's Largest Manufacturers of Products for Dry Cleaners and the Garment Industry" . www.qualitexco.com . Retrieved November 21, 2017."Qualitex - World's Largest Manufacturers of Products for Dry Cleaners and the Garment Industry - SUN GLOW® PRESS PADS" . www.qualitexco.com . Retrieved November 21, 2017.Qualitex Co., v. Jacobson Products Co. 13 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1994).
"FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions" . Findlaw . Retrieved November 21, 2017.
External links
U.S. Supreme Court Article I case lawCommerce Clause of Section VIIIDormant Commerce Clause
Brown v. Maryland Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. Cooley v. Board of Wardens Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois Swift & Co. v. United States George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. Edwards v. California Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. National Bellas Hess v. Illinois Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland Reeves, Inc. v. Stake Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke Maine v. Taylor Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy Granholm v. Heald United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas National Pork Producers Council v. Ross Others
Copyright Clause of Section VIIICopyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. Copyright Act of 1976
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid Stewart v. Abend Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. New York Times Co. v. Tasini Eldred v. Ashcroft MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick Golan v. Holder Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. Allen v. Cooper Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. Other copyright cases
Other patent cases
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde United States v. General Electric Co. United States v. Univis Lens Co. Altvater v. Freeman Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther Brulotte v. Thys Co. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. Graham v. John Deere Co. United States v. Adams Brenner v. Manson Lear, Inc. v. Adkins Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. Gottschalk v. Benson United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. Dann v. Johnston Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. Parker v. Flook Diamond v. Chakrabarty Diamond v. Diehr Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. Dickinson v. Zurko Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. Bilski v. Kappos Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Kappos v. Hyatt Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Gunn v. Minton Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. Other trademark cases
Categories :
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
**DISCLAIMER** We are not affiliated with Wikipedia, and Cloudflare.
The information presented on this site is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice.
You should always have a personal consultation with a healthcare professional before making changes to your diet, medication, or exercise routine.
AI helps with the correspondence in our chat.
We participate in an affiliate program. If you buy something through a link, we may earn a commission 💕
↑
Supreme Court of the United States