Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialpatenttrademark
trademark

Related Cases

Booking.com B.V. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 915 F.3d 171
View Case »
Australian Gold, Inc. v. Hatfield, 436 F.3d 1228, 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1968
View Case »
Arrowpoint Capital Corp. v. Arrowpoint Asset Management, LLC, 793 F.3d 313, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1726
View Case »
Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816, 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1589
View Case »
Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co., 290 F.3d 578, 2002-1 Trade Cases P 73,672, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1757
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Becton, Dickinson and Co., 675 F.3d 1368, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1372

Facts

Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) appealed a decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) which affirmed the refusal to register its design of a closure cap for blood collection tubes as a trademark. The Board found that the design was functional, meaning it served a utilitarian purpose, and thus ineligible for trademark protection. BD argued that its design had acquired distinctiveness, but the Board concluded that even if it had, the mark was still functional.

Issue

Whether the design of BD's closure cap for blood collection tubes is functional and thus ineligible for trademark protection.

Whether the design of BD's closure cap for blood collection tubes is functional and thus ineligible for trademark protection.

Rule

Analysis

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the design of the closure cap was functional and thus not eligible for trademark protection.

The Board concluded that 'the closure cap configuration mark, considered in its entirety, is functional.' Id. at *4.

Who won?

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision was upheld, meaning that the Board, and thus the United States Patent and Trademark Office, prevailed in this case. The court found that the Board did not commit legal error in its assessment of functionality and that substantial evidence supported its findings.

You must be