Trade dress cases often look simple from the outside. A competitor copies the packaging, store layout, product look, or overall visual impression, and the brand wants the copying to stop. In practice, though, enforcement usually turns on details: how clearly the trade dress was defined, whether it is truly source-identifying, whether it is functional, and whether the brand kept the right evidence before a dispute started.
If you are new to this area, it may help to start with a broader overview of how trade dress protection works in the first place. In this post, you’ll learn six common mistakes that can make trade dress enforcement harder, more expensive, and less predictable — and what brands often look at when trying to avoid those problems.
Trade dress is generally protected under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act when the claimed look or feel functions as a source identifier, is nonfunctional, and is likely to cause consumer confusion if copied. Courts have also drawn important lines between product packaging and product design, especially when distinctiveness is at issue. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125, the USPTO’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure on trade dress, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, Wal-Mart v. Samara Brothers, and TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays.
<aside> 💡 Scroll to the bottom for every post in this series.
</aside>
One of the fastest ways to weaken an enforcement position is to describe the trade dress at a very high level of generality.
A company might say its trade dress is “minimalist packaging,” “a modern bottle,” “a luxury storefront,” or “a clean black-and-white website.” That kind of description may sound intuitive in a business meeting, but it often becomes hard to enforce in a legal dispute because the court usually wants a concrete articulation of the claimed elements taken together.
The USPTO’s guidance reflects this same concern. Trade dress applicants are generally expected to describe the mark with enough specificity that the claimed features can actually be evaluated for distinctiveness and functionality. The agency also notes that functionality and distinctiveness are separate issues, and both matter in trade dress analysis. See the USPTO’s current TMEP discussion of trade dress and related examination guidance.
In practical terms, overbroad claims create at least three problems:
Many brands benefit from identifying the exact combination of features they believe creates the protectable commercial impression: shape, color placement, panel arrangement, border treatments, label positioning, typography style as used with other elements, window cutouts, repeated décor motifs, or shelf presentation choices. The point usually is not any single feature in isolation. It is the total image, defined clearly enough that a court can compare it to the accused design.
This is one of the most important trade dress mistakes because it affects the evidence burden from the start.
In Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, the Supreme Court held that inherently distinctive trade dress can be protected without proof of secondary meaning. But in Wal-Mart v. Samara Brothers, the Court drew a major distinction: product design trade dress cannot be inherently distinctive and instead requires proof of secondary meaning. The USPTO follows the same framework and notes that in close cases, ambiguous trade dress is often treated as product design, which means secondary meaning becomes part of the analysis. See the USPTO’s trade dress examination guidance.
That distinction often changes the entire enforcement strategy.
If the claimed trade dress is packaging, a brand may be able to argue inherent distinctiveness depending on the facts. If the claimed trade dress is product design, the brand usually ends up proving that consumers have come to associate that design with a single source over time.
The mistake happens when companies assume all visual branding works the same way. It does not. A bottle label, a restaurant interior, a product box, and the shape of the product itself may trigger different legal questions. A brand that builds an enforcement plan around the wrong category may discover, late in the case, that the court expects a much deeper record on acquired distinctiveness than anyone prepared.