Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 16 (1995)

Page:   Index   Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16

174

QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO.

Opinion of the Court

bolt that customers normally see from a distance); and, in such instances, a firm might want to use color, pure and simple, instead of color as part of a design. Neither is the second portion of the argument convincing. Trademark law helps the holder of a mark in many ways that "trade dress" protection does not. See 15 U. S. C. 1124 (ability to prevent importation of confusingly similar goods); 1072 (constructive notice of ownership); 1065 (incontestible status); 1057(b) (prima facie evidence of validity and ownership). Thus, one can easily find reasons why the law might provide trademark protection in addition to trade dress protection.

IV

Having determined that a color may sometimes meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark and that respondent Jacobson's arguments do not justify a special legal rule preventing color alone from serving as a trademark (and, in light of the District Court's here undisputed findings that Qualitex's use of the green-gold color on its press pads meets the basic trademark requirements), we conclude that the Ninth Circuit erred in barring Qualitex's use of color as a trademark. For these reasons, the judgment of the Ninth Circuit is

Reversed.

Page:   Index   Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16

Last modified: October 4, 2007