Partner
Trademarks and trade dress are both legally protected under U.S. trademark laws. Both serve the “trademark function” of allowing consumers to identify, with a glance, the commercial source of some product or service. Both must be unique, and both can be protected from infringement by those using the same or a confusingly similar trademark or trade dress. Both can be registered with the U.S. Trademark Office (although trade dress is comparatively more difficult to register).
Trademarks tend to be small and “narrow” in form and format and combine more simple elements like text, font, lettering style, colors, and color/artistic combinations. Typical trademarks are:
By contrast, trade dress is more complex and embraces the overall visual and tactile “appearance” of the product or the location in which a service is provided. Think in terms of how the overall product/service “presents itself.” Trade dress can also be much larger than a trademark, including the shape/design of a building or the design, ambiance, and “feel” of the interior of a business. Design elements for trade dress can include:
One of the most famous registered trade dress is the shape and design elements of the Coca-Cola bottle. When consumers see a bottle with that particular shape and a red label, consumers tend to think of the Coca-Cola soft drink. Other examples include McDonald’s Happy Meal Box, the interior design of Apple stores, and the color scheme of Subway restaurants.
As noted, trade dress can be comparatively more difficult to register with the U.S. Trademark Office. This is because trade dress must meet all of the standard requirements for registration, including use in commerce, uniqueness, function as a trademark, distinctiveness, etc. However, trade dress must meet another requirement: the trade dress CANNOT be functional in any manner. In common terms, functionality asks whether the product functions or “works” better in that particular trade dress. For example, with shape-related trade dress, does the shape make the product — such as a bottle — function better, like making it easier to grip or easier fill or empty the contents, etc. Color elements can also have functionality. For example, color may affect light and heat absorption, which might impact the product, its use, its longevity, etc.
Another aspect of functionality is whether the trade dress impacts the manufacturing or production of the product. If various trade dress elements make manufacture easier or less expensive, then the trade dress will be considered functional. As such, that particular trade dress will be denied registration.
Another aspect of functionality is whether other design options are available. If the product will only function in that exact shape/configuration, then the trade dress is functional.
Contact The Trademark Attorneys At Revision Legal For more information, contact the experienced Trademark Lawyers at Revision Legal. You can contact us through the form on this page or call (855) 473-8474.
While trademarks and trade dress share the same fundamental purpose — identifying the commercial source of goods or services — the legal standards that govern their protection diverge significantly at the level of registration, infringement analysis, and litigation strategy. Businesses that fail to understand these differences can inadvertently allow valuable commercial identity to go unprotected or, worse, pursue registrations that will not survive examination.
Both trademarks and trade dress are protected under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), creates a federal cause of action for infringement of both registered and unregistered trademarks and trade dress. This means trade dress protection — unlike copyright — does not require registration to have legal force. However, registration provides significant advantages, and the USPTO’s examination standards for trade dress applications are considerably more demanding than for word marks.
Both trademarks and trade dress must be distinctive to be protectable. The spectrum of distinctiveness runs from generic (no protection) to descriptive (secondary meaning required) to suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful (inherently distinctive). The Supreme Court addressed distinctiveness for trade dress in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000), holding that product design trade dress — unlike product packaging — is presumed to be non-distinctive and can only be protected upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. “Secondary meaning” means that a substantial portion of the consuming public associates the design with a particular commercial source, not just the product category generally.
By contrast, word marks and logos can be inherently distinctive without any proof of secondary meaning, provided they are sufficiently fanciful, arbitrary, or suggestive. This fundamental difference in the law means trade dress is almost always harder to register and more costly to protect.
The functionality doctrine is the most significant legal obstacle unique to trade dress claims. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(5), functional matter cannot be registered as a trademark. The Supreme Court addressed functionality in TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001), establishing that a feature is functional — and thus ineligible for trademark protection — if it is “essential to the use or purpose of the device or… affects the cost or quality of the device.”
The Court also recognized aesthetic functionality: if exclusive use of a decorative feature would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage, it may be deemed functional. Color, for example, can be aesthetically functional in some markets. The shape of a medicine capsule that uses a distinctive color scheme may be functional if that color scheme is used by consumers to identify the dosage strength or type.
Functionality must be addressed at the registration stage and can be raised as an affirmative defense in trade dress infringement litigation. A trade dress plaintiff bears the burden of proving non-functionality under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3). This makes trade dress litigation both more complex and more expensive than standard trademark litigation.
For both trademarks and trade dress, the central legal question in an infringement case is whether the allegedly infringing mark or dress creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers about the source of goods or services. Courts apply multi-factor tests to analyze likelihood of confusion — the Sixth Circuit, for example, applies the factors from Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., 670 F.2d 642 (6th Cir. 1982), including strength of the mark, similarity of the marks, channels of trade, sophistication of consumers, and evidence of actual confusion.
For trade dress, courts additionally examine whether the overall “look and feel” of the competing product creates confusion when viewed as a whole. This holistic comparison requires expert analysis and, in many cases, consumer survey evidence. Survey design methodology — and the qualifications of the expert conducting the survey — can be pivotal in trade dress litigation.
For most businesses, trademark registration for word marks and logos should come first. These registrations are more straightforward, less expensive, and provide the core brand protections most businesses need. Trade dress registration should be pursued when the overall look and feel of a product or business location is genuinely distinctive, non-functional, and strongly associated in the marketplace with a single commercial source.
If your trade dress does not yet have secondary meaning, the strategy is to document evidence of distinctiveness over time — advertising expenditures, sales volume, consumer recognition evidence, and media coverage — so that a future application has the evidentiary foundation needed to survive USPTO examination. Trade dress protection built without that foundation will likely fail on examination or in litigation.
The trademark and trade dress attorneys at Revision Legal can evaluate your branding portfolio, identify what is protectable, and develop a registration and enforcement strategy tailored to your business. Contact us to discuss how we can protect the commercial identity you have built.
Registering a trademark is one of the smartest investments you can make as a business owner. A trademark protects your brand, gives you exclusive rights to use your mark in commerce, and provides significant legal advantages — including a presumption of ownership and the ability to bring infringement claims in federal court. But many business […]
Read more about Six Important Trademark Questions Answered
The USPTO’s failure-to-function doctrine rejects trademarks that don’t identify a unique source. Learn what causes these refusals, why distinctiveness matters, and how to choose a stronger mark.
Read more about Trademark Failure to Function: Why the USPTO Rejects Trademarks and How to Avoid It
If another business has registered your trademark, you may still have legal options. Learn how first-to-use rights, USPTO oppositions, and common law claims can protect your brand.
Read more about Trademark Already Registered by Someone Else? Your Legal Options