Florida Litigation Guide

Trade Dress Infringement -

[1] Elements and Case Citations

(1) Plaintiff is the prior user of the trade dress;

(2) Plaintiff’s trade dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning;

(3) The features of the plaintiff’s trade dress are primarily non-functional; and

(4) Plaintiff’s and defendant’s trade dress are confusingly similar.

The elements of common law trade dress infringement and Lanham Act trade dress infringement are identical. See e.g., American United Life Ins. Co. v. American United Ins. Co., 731 F. Supp. 480, 486 (S.D. Fla. 1990). Trade dress describes the product’s complete image, and includes, but is not limited to, shape, size, texture, color combinations, graphics or unique sales techniques. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. 505 U.S. 763, 765, 112 S. Ct. 2735, 120 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1992).

____________________________________

Florida Federal Courts

Eleventh Circuit: Epic Metals Corp. v. Souliere, 99 F.3d 1034, 1038 (11th Cir. 1996)

Southern District: Levenger Co. v. Feldman, 516 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1287 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

Middle District: Gen. Motors Corp. v. Phat Cat Carts, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1284 (M.D. Fla. 2006)

[2] Defenses to Claim for Trade Dress Infringement

Trade dress has been generally incorporated into the law of trade marks and thus the defenses are the same. See Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition § 16 Comment a (1995).

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 60.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years). See Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531, 1546 (11th Cir. 1986).

(3) Consent. See § 85 [2].

(4) Abandonment. See § 85 [2].

(5) Unreasonable Delay (Laches). See § 85 [2].

(6) Plaintiff’s Misconduct (Unclean Hands). See § 85 [2].

(7) Plaintiff’s failure to initiate litigation against every potential and actual infringer does not, without more, diminish the strength of the plaintiff’s mark. See Breakers of Palm Beach, Inc. v. International Beach Hotel Development, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 1576, 1584 (S.D. Fla. 1993).

(8) Acquiescence is an equitable defense available when the licensor has expressly or impliedly consented the infringement. See Isaly Co. v. Kraft, Inc., 619 F. Supp. 983, 995 (M.D. Fla. 1985).