The Fourth Circuit in McAirlaids Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., held this year that ownership of a utility patent does not necessarily preclude a claim in trade dress rights, particularly where the patent does not specifically cover the asserted trade dress.
This decision is of importance as it reviewed the Supreme Court’s holding in TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., stating that the presence of a utility patent is strong evidence of functionality, thus defeating a trade dress claim.
McAirlaids filed suit in the Western District of Virginia against Kimberly-Clark for trade dress infringement and unfair competition after Kimberly-Clark started using a similar pattern on one of its products.
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment after it found that McAirlaids had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine factual question as to whether its selection of pattern was purely an aesthetic choice among other options the company had considered.
The Circuit Court held that the existence of a utility patent is only one of several factors that the district court should have considered in evaluating the functionality of the dot pattern. Unlike TrafFix, where the dual-spring mechanism at issue was not registered as a trade dress, in the present case the pinpoint dot pattern allegedly infringed was subject to trade dress federal registration, thus shifting the burden to defendant to show functionality by preponderance of evidence. Another distinguishable element is that the utility patent held by McAirlaids does not mention the specific dot pattern as a protected feature.
This latest decision on the subject shows that the crossroads of trademarks and patents are as interesting as ever, and that many different factors may ultimately determine the fate of a trade dress.