Master The Supreme Court held that a single color can function as a trademark under the Lanham Act if it has acquired secondary meaning and is nonfunctional. with this comprehensive case brief.
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products is a landmark Supreme Court decision that expanded the boundaries of what can constitute a protectable trademark under the Lanham Act. Rejecting a categorical ban on color trademarks, the Court held that a single color can, in appropriate circumstances, identify and distinguish the source of goods. The opinion clarifies that the statute's capacious language—protecting "any word, name, symbol, or device"—is not limited to traditional word or logo marks, and that marketplace realities, not formal categories, should drive trademark analysis.
The decision is pivotal because it harmonizes trademark doctrine with modern branding practices, where nontraditional marks (colors, shapes, sounds, and even scents) can serve as powerful source identifiers. At the same time, the Court reinforced the crucial limiting principles of secondary meaning and functionality, ensuring that trademark law continues to protect source identification without impeding fair competition or granting monopolies over useful product features.
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Qualitex Co. manufactured and sold special press pads for commercial dry-cleaning presses. Beginning in the 1950s, it used a distinctive green-gold color on its press pads, and over decades customers came to associate that color with Qualitex as the source. In 1989, Jacobson Products began selling press pads in a similar green-gold color. Qualitex sued in federal district court, asserting unfair competition under §43(a) of the Lanham Act and state law; after obtaining a federal registration in 1991 for the green-gold color applied to its press pads, Qualitex added a claim for infringement of its registered trademark. The district court found for Qualitex, determining that the green-gold color had acquired secondary meaning and was nonfunctional, and it enjoined Jacobson's use. The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that a single color could not be protected as a trademark. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the Lanham Act permits trademark protection for a color per se.
Does the Lanham Act permit registration and protection of a trademark that consists solely of a single color used on a product, provided the color has acquired secondary meaning and is nonfunctional?
Under the Lanham Act, "any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof" that is used to identify and distinguish a party's goods and to indicate their source may serve as a trademark, so long as it is not functional. A single color can qualify as a trademark if (1) the color has acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) in the relevant market, and (2) the color is nonfunctional—that is, it is not essential to the use or purpose of the article, does not affect its cost or quality, and its exclusive appropriation would not put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.
Yes. A single color may be registered and protected as a trademark under the Lanham Act if it has acquired secondary meaning and is nonfunctional. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
The Court, per Justice Breyer, began with the Lanham Act's broad text, which protects "any word, name, symbol, or device" used to identify and distinguish goods. Nothing in the statute excludes color. Indeed, the Act's inclusive language and its focus on source identification support recognizing color as a potential mark where it helps consumers distinguish source. The Court emphasized that trademark law's core purpose is to reduce consumer search costs and protect producers' goodwill; if a color performs that source-identifying function, its status as "color" does not disqualify it. Addressing policy objections, the Court rejected the so-called color depletion and shade confusion rationales. Concerns that competitively necessary colors could be locked up are adequately addressed by the functionality doctrine, which bars protection for features essential to a product's use or that confer non-reputation-related competitive advantages (e.g., the color black for outboard motors to better match many boat colors or reduce perceived size). Similarly, any administrability issues regarding close shades and likelihood of confusion are problems courts routinely manage in trademark disputes through evidence and standard infringement analysis. The Court further explained that color marks must acquire secondary meaning before they can be protected; consumers must come to associate the color with a single source. This requirement screens out attempts to claim colors that have not achieved source significance. Separately, the functionality doctrine prevents color monopolies that would hinder competition. Nonfunctional, source-identifying colors—such as the pink insulation in Owens-Corning—may be protected, but colors that yield utilitarian or significant aesthetic advantages may not. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the Ninth Circuit's per se rule against color marks was inconsistent with the statute and modern trademark principles. Because the district court had found Qualitex's green-gold color both distinctive and nonfunctional, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Qualitex confirms that nontraditional indicators—specifically, single colors—can function as trademarks, provided they have secondary meaning and are nonfunctional. The case anchors the modern approach to trade dress and unconventional marks, treating them under the same analytic framework as word and logo marks. It also sharpens the functionality limitation, including aesthetic functionality, as a critical check against granting trademark rights that would unfairly hinder competition. For law students, Qualitex is foundational to understanding the breadth of protectable subject matter under the Lanham Act and the balance between source identification and competitive need.
No. A single color is protectable only if it has acquired secondary meaning—consumers perceive the color as indicating a single source—and the color is nonfunctional. If a color is useful or aesthetically necessary for effective competition (e.g., provides a cost, quality, or significant non-reputation-related advantage), it cannot be monopolized as a trademark.
Secondary meaning exists when, in the minds of consumers, a color identifies the product's source rather than the product itself. It is typically proven through consumer surveys, length and exclusivity of use, advertising and promotion emphasizing the color, sales success, media coverage, and evidence of intentional copying by competitors.
Functionality bars trademark protection for product features that are essential to use or purpose, affect cost or quality, or whose exclusive control would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage. Colors that improve visibility or safety, conceal wear, reduce manufacturing costs, or offer important aesthetic compatibility may be deemed functional and therefore unprotectable.
The Court held that color can be a valid trademark and reversed the Ninth Circuit's categorical ban. It did not conduct a full infringement analysis; instead, it relied on the district court's findings that Qualitex's color had secondary meaning and was nonfunctional and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The Supreme Court rejected per se rules barring color marks based on depletion or administrability concerns. It concluded that functionality and standard likelihood-of-confusion analysis adequately manage competitive and evidentiary problems, making categorical exclusions unnecessary and inconsistent with the Lanham Act's broad language.
Qualitex reinforces that the Lanham Act protects overall trade dress and its components when they identify source and are nonfunctional. Colors, like shapes and packaging designs, are evaluated under the same principles: distinctiveness (often through secondary meaning) and nonfunctionality, with infringement turning on likelihood of confusion.
Qualitex modernized trademark doctrine by recognizing that colors, like other symbols, can tell consumers who made a product. The Court grounded its decision in the Lanham Act's expansive text and the pragmatic recognition that market participants rely on a variety of nontraditional indicators to convey source. By rejecting categorical bans on color marks, the Court aligned trademark law with branding realities.
Equally important, the decision reaffirmed the safeguards that keep trademark protection from stifling competition. Secondary meaning ensures that only source-identifying colors receive protection, and the functionality doctrine prevents monopolies over features competitors need to make and market their products. Together, these principles make Qualitex a cornerstone case for understanding the scope and limits of trademark protection under the Lanham Act.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →