Under European Union (EU) law—specifically, Article 103(2) of Regulation 1308/2013—signs that qualify as protected designations of origin (PDOs) or protected geographical indications (PGIs) are shielded against any direct or indirect commercial use, as well as against any “evocation” of it that is likely to mislead a consumer as to the true origin of the product. This language raises the question of the conditions under which a sign may be said to be “evocative” of a PDO or PGI.
Companies trying to compete for supermarket shelf space and consumer attention frequently turn to packaging and product designs that will stand out. If the product succeeds, one unfortunate side effect for the brand owner is the market can become flooded with “me too” products that attempt to ride on the coattails of that success. How do owners of unique products protect themselves? Trade dress protection is one legal tool that companies should consider.
On October 30, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision from the International Trade Court invalidating the Converse Chuck Taylor sneaker design trade dress. Converse Inc. v. ITC, No. 2016-2497, 2018 WL 5536405 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2018). At first glance, this appeared to be great news for Converse. However, the decision highlights multiple obstacles that Converse, and other brand owners, will continue to face as they seek to enforce product design trade dress in the US.