United States: Precedential No. 23: TTAB Affirms Section 2(e)(5) Functionality Refusal Of Umbrella Configuration

Last Updated: August 23 2019
Article by John L. Welch

In view of Applicant OEP's own utility patent, the Board had no doubt in affirming a Section 2(e)(5) functionality refusal of the product configuration shown below, for umbrellas. Although Section 2(e)(5) is an absolute bar to registration, the Board also considered OEP's claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) but found its proofs inadequate. In re OEP Enterprises, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 309323 (TTAB 2019) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin).

Functionality: Observing that the application drawing "depicts the mark to be registered," and that unclaimed matter must be shown in broken lines, Kohler, 125 USPQ2d at 1488 (quoting Heatcon, 116 USPQ2d at 1379) (citing Trademark Rule 2.52, 37 C.F.R. § 2.52)), the Board concluded that the assessment of functionality must take into account the entire configuration of the umbrella and not, as OEP contended, just the "mesh lower canopy of a double canopy umbrella."

OEP did not dispute that the handle, shaft, runner, and ribs of the umbrella are functional, nor that the upper canopy "blocks the rain or sunlight from the user." The question, then, was "whether the mesh canopy is also functional or, if it is not, whether its non-functionality makes the applied-for mark as a whole non-functional."

OEP owned a design patent on the umbrella design (see Fig. 3 of the design patent, immediately below), and the Board agreed that this is evidence of non-functionality. "Our law recognizes that the existence of a design patent for the very design for which trademark protection is sought 'presumptively indicates that the design is not du jure functional.'" Becton, Dickinson, 102 USPQ2d at 1377 (quoting Morton-Norwich, 213 USPQ at 17 n.3). However, the existence of a design patent is not dispositive of the functionality issue.

OEP also owned a now-expired utility patent, entitled "Umbrella and Umbrella Canopy," that depicted a dual-canopy umbrella (see Fig. 5 below). The patent specification stated that, in contrast to some prior designs that utilize die cut holes, the mesh material "provides strength to the entire first canopy portion 22, helping to keep the first canopy portion taut." Moreover, the mesh portions are "easier to sew along the panel seams," and there is less waste of material as compared to die cut vent holes. And, according to the patent, "the present invention has significantly greater airflow than prior art designs." The Board observed that the inclusion of these statements in the specification of the patent rather than in the claims "does not matter." See Becton, Dickinson, 102 USPQ2d at 1377.

Moreover several dependent claims of the patent "teach all elements of the applied-for mark, including the lower mesh canopy on which Applicant focuses on appeal." Both the claims and the specification of the patent support a finding of functionality. See Becton, Dickinson, 102 USPQ2d at 1377; In re Howard Leight Indus., LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1507, 1510-11 (TTAB 2006).

The strong and explicit evidence from the '506 Utility Patent that the applied-for mark as a whole is functional rebuts any initial presumption of non-functionality resulting from the existence of the '125 Design Patent. In fact, we view the disclosures in the '506 Utility Patent as so strong as to be sufficient, by themselves, to sustain the functionality refusal without consideration of the other Morton-Norwich categories of evidence. See Grote Indus., 126 USPQ2d at 1203.

For the sake of completeness, the Board went on to discuss the other Morton-Norwich factors.

In its advertising, Applicant OEP referred to its "[p]atented double canopy mesh system," thus reflecting OEP's view that the patented design was an improvement over previous designs (particularly with regard to preventing inversion of the umbrella). It generally claimed that its patented umbrellas are superior to other umbrellas. The Board found that these materials provided "some additional support for a finding of functionality."

As to alternative designs, OEP contended that there are many other types of "air transmissible lower canopies on the market, including various cutouts (e.g., circles, irregular shapes, etc.), no material at all, and other types of air transmissible materials." The Board noted, however, that there was no showing that these designs "work as well as Applicant's design."

Competitors are now free to produce the umbrellas taught in the '506 Utility Patent because it has expired, and competition would be inhibited if Applicant could use trademark law to prevent production of what Applicant claimed in the expired '506 Utility Patent to be a superior two-canopy umbrella design. See Qualitex, 34 USPQ2d at 1163-64.

Finally, as to cost of manufacture, the Board observed that "evidence that a design costs more, or has no impact on cost, is irrelevant if the design is found to work better." In any case, in light of the "clear statements about cost savings in the '506 Utility Patent," the Board found that the proposed mark has "at least some cost-related benefits in addition to use-related ones." Thus this factor also provided support for the finding of functionality.

The Board found that the proposed mark as a whole is functional and it therefore affirmed the refusal to register.

Acquired Distinctiveness: Even though a finding of functionality under Section 2(e)(5) precludes registration of a proposed mark, the Board went on to discuss OEP's claim of acquired distinctiveness.

The burden of providing acquired distinctiveness for a product configuration is heavier than for word marks because consumers are not predisposed to view product shapes as source indicators. See Grote Indus., 126 USPQ2d at 1210; Wal-Mart, 54 USPQ2d at 1069. Since many third parties, according to OEP, sell similarly shaped umbrellas, "a substantial showing of acquired distinctiveness" is required. Kohler, 125 USPQ2d at 1504 (quoting Udor, 89 USPQ2d at 1986).

OEP submitted direct evidence in the form of declarations from its founder and president, from four sellers of its umbrellas, and from one of its competitors, all of whom claimed to be experts "in the umbrella business." The president offered his opinion on the ultimate question of acquired distinctiveness, and all declarants opined on consumer perception of OEP's umbrella. The Board found that the declarants are experts in the umbrella business, but not experts as to how consumers perceive the design in question.

The Board gave no weight to the president's opinion on the ultimate issue, and "very little weight" regarding consumer perception. All of the declarations lacked specificity as to the basis for these opinions. Moreover the third-party declarants were not representative of all categories of end users of the product, and the use of form declarations, although not forbidden, lessened their probative value. In sum, the Board found the declarations to be non-probative.

As to OEP's circumstantial evidence of acquired distinctiveness, the Board noted that the purported mark has been in use since 1998, but long use of a mark "is not necessarily conclusive or persuasive" on the issue, Kohler, 125 USPQ2d at 1515. However, in this case OEP's long use supports its claim because there was no evidence of competitor use of a double canopy design from 1998 to 2017.

OEP's sales figures were "substantial in the umbrella industry," but large sales and advertising figures do not always compel a finding of acquired distinctiveness. OEP's advertising "did nothing to encourage readers to associate the shape of the umbrella with Applicant." The failure to do so was particularly significant because a significant portion of OEP's wholesale business comprises promotional products that are branded with the marks and logos of other companies, such as Cadillac and Lexus. In short, OEP did not provide any evidence that its advertising efforts focused on the trademark significance of the design at issue, rather than on the utilitarian benefits of the product.

Finally, OEP pointed to its policing efforts regarding the design, having successfully challenged three other entities, all of whom stopped selling their umbrellas. The Board was not impressed. It was not convinced from the scanty evidence that these entities had copied the product in order to trade on the asserted distinctiveness of the design.

Considering the evidence in its entirety, the Board concluded that OEP had failed to meet "its burden to make a substantial showing that the applied-for product configuration mark has acquired distinctiveness."

TTABlog comment: Design inventions are almost never denied patent protection due to functionality. That's because, in the design patent context, a design is unpatentable on the ground of functionality only if it is the ONLY possible design. For example, a keyway for a certain lock. On the trademark side, the test for functionality is different and broader: it considers whether the design is better than alternative designs. The fact that a design is covered by a design patent should have no bearing on whether the design is de jure functional under Section 2(e)(5). For a discussion of this point, see Prof. Sarah Burstein's 2015 article from The Trademark Reporter (here).

The TTABlog

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions