In re Chippendales USA, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
622 F.3d 1346 (2010)
- Written by Emily Houde, JD
Facts
In 1979, performers for Chippendales USA, Inc. (Chippendales) (plaintiff) began wearing tuxedo wrist cuffs and bowties without a shirt, known as the “Cuffs & Collar” costume. In 2000, Chippendales applied to register the Cuffs & Collar trade dress with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Although the examining attorney did not find that the mark was inherently distinctive, the PTO registered the mark for “adult entertainment services, namely exotic dancing for women” because the mark had acquired distinctiveness through Chippendales’ five consecutive years of substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce. In 2005, Chippendales filed to register the Cuffs & Collar mark again on the basis that it was inherently distinctive. The examining attorney found that the Cuffs & Collar mark was not inherently distinctive, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) affirmed. The Board found that the Cuffs & Collar design was of the type commonly used by exotic dancers’ dressing in various provocative uniforms for their performances. Furthermore, because the Chippendales’ particular costume was inspired by and utilized similar features as the Playboy bunny suit, the Board found that this particular costume was not unique or unusual in this market. Chippendales appealed this decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dyk, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.