Intellectual Property
L. M. v. C. A. Corp., 987 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2023)
Study notes for L. M. v. C. A. Corp.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Fashion designs must demonstrate non-functionality and secondary meaning to qualify for trade dress protection under the Lanham Act.
In L. M. v. C. A. Corp., the court addressed significant issues concerning trade dress protection under the Lanham Act. The Second Circuit emphasized that for a design to be protected as trade dress, it must demonstrate non-functionality - meaning it must not be essential to the use or purpose of the article - and have acquired secondary meaning, indicating that consumers recognize the design as associated with a particular source. Here, L. M. failed to establish these essential criteria, leading to their claim's dismissal.
Professors may highlight the importance of understanding the dual requirements of non-functionality and secondary meaning when analyzing trade dress cases. Additionally, they might stress the implications of this case for designers and brands seeking legal protection for their unique designs and how the failure to satisfy these elements reflects broader trends in intellectual property jurisprudence, particularly in the fashion industry.
NFSMM - Non-Functionality and Secondary Meaning Must be Met.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. | Kraft successfully demonstrated the secondary meaning of its packaging which was explicitly identified with its brand, unlike L. M.'s designs. |
| Fendi Adele S.R.L. v. K-9 Mfg. Co. | In Fendi, the court upheld the trade dress protection because the design elements were found to be non-functional and had acquired substantial secondary meaning, contrary to L. M.’s failure in both aspects. |
Upholding strict requirements for trade dress protection encourages genuine innovation and prevents the monopolization of commonplace design elements.
Restricting trade dress protection may hinder creative industries, making it harder for designers to protect their unique artistic expressions.
Exam questions may focus on the requirements for trade dress protection, requiring students to analyze cases where designs may fall short of non-functionality and secondary meaning criteria.