Moldex-Metric, Inc. v. McKeon Products, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 06 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MOLDEX-METRIC, INC., a California No. 13-55446
corporation,
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01742-GHK-
Plaintiff - Appellant, AGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MCKEON PRODUCTS, INC., a Michigan
Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Moldex-Metric, Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in its trademark infringement action against McKeon Products, Inc. We review
grants of summary judgment de novo. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods.,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
406 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2005). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we
reverse and remand.
In Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), the
Supreme Court addressed when a color could receive trademark protection (in that
case, the green-gold color on dry cleaning press pads). The Court held that even if
a color rendered some functionality for the product, the color could still receive
trademark protection. Id. at 166. A key inquiry under Qualitex is whether the
color “is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or
quality of the article, that is, if exclusive use of the feature would put competitors
at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.” Id. at 165 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The Court held that the green-gold color on the dry cleaning press
pads could receive trademark protection despite some functionality, as other colors
achieved the same goal of hiding stains. Id. at 166.
By not addressing essentiality when analyzing the functionality of the ear
plugs’ green color, the district court erred. The district court relied on the non-
exclusive factors described in Disc Golf Ass’n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158
F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 1998), understanding those factors to be dispositive.
While the Disc Golf factors are “legitimate considerations,” Au-Tomotive Gold,
Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1072 n.8 (9th Cir. 2006), that “this
2 13-55446
circuit typically considers,” Talking Rain Beverage Co. v. S. Beach Beverage Co.,
349 F.3d 601, 603 (9th Cir. 2003), a court cannot rigidly apply these factors and
ignore Qualitex’s focus on essentiality. We do not fault the district court for
overlooking Qualitex, as our precedent is less than clear in this area.
Although we doubt summary judgment on functionality grounds would be
appropriate in this case, we leave it to the district court to assess functionality in
light of Qualitex in the first instance. See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279
F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because of the intensely factual nature of
trademark disputes, summary judgment is generally disfavored in the trademark
arena.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Each party shall bear its own costs on
appeal.
VACATED, REVERSED, and REMANDED.
3 13-55446
FILED
Moldex-Metric, Inc. v. McKeon Products, Inc., No. 13-55446 MAR 06 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
WATFORD, Circuit Judge, dissenting: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The majority faults the district court for not adhering to the functionality
doctrine established by Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159
(1995). But as the district court recognized, Qualitex is not the last word on
functionality: Our circuit has placed its own gloss on Qualitex, which the district
court was required to follow. See Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of
America, Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1072 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court
applied our precedent correctly, so I would affirm.
The district court started by quoting our decision in Disc Golf Association v.
Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1998), which explains that a
“product feature is functional ‘if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article.’”
Id. at 1006 (quoting Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165). That is the very standard the
majority suggests the district court “overlooked.” The district court then correctly
recognized that our precedent renders a product feature “essential” only if an
examination of four factors so designates it. See Au-Tomotive Gold, 457 F.3d at
1072 & n.8; Talking Rain Beverage Co. v. South Beach Beverage, 349 F.3d 601,
603 (9th Cir. 2003); Disc Golf, 158 F.3d at 1006. The district court applied that
four-factor test and, in my view, the record supports the district court’s
conclusions. The majority asserts that the district court applied the four factors too
Page 2 of 2
rigidly, but the district court merely weighed the factors as we have instructed.
See, e.g., Talking Rain, 349 F.3d at 603 (noting that the existence of alternative
designs can’t trump the other three factors); Disc Golf, 158 F.3d at 1009 (noting
that advertising is “strong evidence of functionality” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). If the test is rigid, we have made it so.
The district court applied the test for functionality that our circuit’s law
requires. The majority may not like that test, and I can understand why: It does
appear as though our circuit’s law has strayed from Qualitex’s core principles. But
we can’t in fairness fault the district court for refusing to revamp the test for
functionality, something that only an en banc court or the Supreme Court can do.