Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
Headline: Court allows single colors to serve as trademarks, reversing a lower court and making it easier for companies to register a brand color while limiting competitors’ use.
Holding: The Court holds that the Lanham Act does not categorically bar registering a single color as a trademark and that a color may be protected when it identifies a brand and is not functional.
- Allows companies to register a single color as a trademark in some cases.
- May stop competitors from using the same color that identifies a brand.
- Courts will use functionality and confusion tests to resolve color disputes.
Summary
Background
Qualitex Company, which makes press pads for dry cleaning machines, used a special green-gold color on its pads since the 1950s. A rival, Jacobson Products, began selling pads in a similar color in 1989. Qualitex registered the green-gold color as a trademark in 1991 and sued for infringement. A district court found for Qualitex, but the Ninth Circuit reversed on the ground that the law forbids color alone as a trademark. The Supreme Court agreed to review and issued the decision described here.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the Lanham Act allows a color, by itself, to be a trademark. It held that the Act’s broad language can include color when the color identifies a product’s source. The Court explained that color may acquire “secondary meaning” — customers come to associate the color with a single producer — and that trademark law protects such identifying features. At the same time, the Court said the functionality rule prevents protection when a color is essential to a product’s use or affects cost or quality. The Court also relied on administrative practice and congressional revisions showing no absolute ban on color marks. Because the district court found Qualitex’s green-gold nonfunctional and distinctive, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
Real world impact
This ruling allows firms to seek trademark protection for a single color when that color identifies their brand and is not functional. Competitors may be barred from using a protected color, but the functionality doctrine and existing tests for consumer confusion will limit anticompetitive results. Outcomes will depend on the specific facts about distinctiveness and functional need.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?