| Summary: | 碩士 === 世新大學 === 智慧財產權研究所(含碩專班) === 101 === Under the traditional rule, the single color of a product was not capable of protection as a trademark. The traditional rule was supported by the rationales of “color depletion” and “shade confusion”. In 1995, in the Qualitex case, the Supreme Court resolved the split of opinion, favoring the Federal Circuit rule and holding that a single color of a product is capable of being registered and protected as a trademark.
Although a single color of a product is capable of being registered and protected as a trademark. The court in Qualitex , it held that there is nothing different between color marks and any other marks, a registered mark has to be distinctiveness and non-functional. The court also mentioned, that no single color can ever be inherently distinctive. Single color always requires proof of secondary meaning.
In order to accommodate trade dress law to the policies of patent law and of free competition, the common law early developed the policy that no trade dress or trademark rights could validly be claim in “functional” shape or features. There rationales underlying the functionality bar: accommodation to the important principle of free competition that there is only one legal source of exclusive rights in utilitarian features-utility patent law, and preserving free and effective competition by ensuring that competitors can copy features that they need to “compete effectively.”
Because the color mark is non-traditional type of the mark, color mark is essentially different with traditional marks. When the color marks use in the fashion industry, Sometimes, the distinctiveness factor and the functional factor of color marks were mixed. It’s quite difficultly to separate all. In 2012, a refreshing boundary in trademark law for the fashion world was established in Louboutin v. Yves St. Laurent. There, the district court doubted the validity of the federal trademark registration that was unfairly impeding other designers, and the Second Circuit to rewrite Louboutin’s trademark, and narrowed the scope of mark. This court kept the freedom of competition less inhibited within the fashion industry, creating a winning situation for consumers and designers alike.
In Taiwan, trademark law and Examination Guidelines for non-traditional marks is followed The United States. This article collects and researches the related important cases and scholars’ academic papers, and firstly begins from the U.S. trademark legislations and cases to study the concept, function, its scope and content of the “the functionality of color trademark”, discussing the distinctiveness and non-functional requirements for the protection of "color marks” in the U.S., and studies the related cases in Taiwan. Finally, this thesis conclusion and certain suggestions of the study are made in Chapter six in order to enhance the hand-on value and practicability of this thesis.
|
|---|
