Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 126 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. Anchor | green | “to establish secondary meaning, a manufacturer must show that, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.” | 28 |
| 2 | Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. | green | “in general terms, a product feature is functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.” | 24 |
| 3 | TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. | green | “a utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional.” | 21 |
| 4 | TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. | green | “if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.” | 14 |
| 5 | TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. | green | “product design almost invariably serves purposes other than source identification.” | 12 |
| 6 | Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. | green | “is essential to the use or purpose of the article.” | 7 |
| 7 | Shire US Inc. v. Barr Laboratories Inc. | green | “trade dress protection . . . is not in- tended to create patent-like rights in innovative aspects of product design.” | 7 |
| 8 | Fair Wind Sailing Inc v. H. Dempster | green | “word, name, sym- bol, or device . . . used by a person . . . to identify and distin- guish his or her goods . . . from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods.” | 7 |
| 9 | Keene Corporation v. Paraflex Industries, Inc., Sim-Kar Lighting Fixtures Co., Inc | green | “proof of nonfunctionality generally requires a showing that the element of the product serves no purpose other than identification.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.