Bodum USA, Inc. v. A Top New Casting Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
927 F.3d 486 (2019)
- Written by Philip Glass, JD
Facts
In 1983, Bodum USA, Inc. (Bodum) (plaintiff), a seller of French-press coffeemakers, started to sell a distinctively designed French press called the Chambord. In 2014, A Top New Casting Inc. (A Top) (defendant) began distributing a French press with handle, lid, and metal-frame designs similar to the Chambord. Bodum filed suit under the Lanham Act against A Top for infringement of the Chambord’s unregistered trade dress. Bodum claimed Lanham Act protection for the overall appearance of the Chambord, including its lid, handle, and metal frame. Thus, at trial, Bodum’s expert opined on the handle, lid, and metal-frame designs as serving decorative rather than practical purposes. Bodum proffered evidence of advertising focusing on the aesthetic over the utilitarian aspects of the Chambord’s design. The court considered evidence of alternative, less complicated designs. In response, A Top argued that Bodum had failed to establish that these specific elements of the claimed trade dress were nonfunctional, as would be required for the trade dress to be protected under the Lanham Act. Additionally, the court excluded utility-patent evidence that A Top sought to introduce on grounds of a lack of reference to the design features. The jury ruled in Bodum’s favor. A Top appealed the conclusion regarding the non-functionality of the Chambord trade dress and the court’s exclusion of utility patents from evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.