Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Groeneveld Transp. Efficiency, inc. v. Lubecore Int'l, Inc. - 730 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2013)


To prevail on a claim for the infringement of a product-design trade dress, a plaintiff must prove that its allegedly infringed product design: (1) is nonfunctional, (2) has acquired secondary meaning, and (3) is confusingly similar to the allegedly infringing product design. The meaning of these three elements is fleshed out in the caselaw. A product design is functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.


Plaintiff Groeneveld Transport Efficiency, Inc. ("Groeneveld") filed a lawsuit in federal district court against defendant Lubecore International, Inc. ("Lubecore"), claiming that Lubecore's automotive grease pump was a "virtually identical" copy of Groeneveld's automotive grease pump. The complaint asserted that such copying constituted trade-dress infringement in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham (Trademark) Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), and further violated a number of related federal and Ohio laws. All the claims except trade-dress infringement were dismissed when the district court granted Lubecore's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The trade-dress claim went to the jury, which found for Groeneveld and awarded it $1,225,000 in damages. Lubecore appealed the denial of its Rule 50 motion with respect to the trade-dress claim. Groeneveld in turn cross-appealed from the dismissal of its other claims. 


Can a company use trade-dress law to protect its functional product design from competition with a "copycat" design made by another company where there was no reasonable likelihood that consumers would confuse the two companies' products as emanating from a single source?




The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the district court denying Lubecore's Rule 50 motion with respect to Groeneveld's trade-dress claim, affirmed the district court's dismissal of Groeneveld's other claims, and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of Lubecore on all claims. The ruled that trademark law was designed to promote brand recognition, not to insulate product manufacturers from lawful competition. In the instant case, because the grease pump's volume, shape, and materials were all essentially influenced by the dictates of function, the overall design of the pump was functional, and Groeneveld presented no evidence showing that the individual components of its grease pump or their overall configuration were nonfunctional, it failed to carry its burden of creating a triable issue of fact with respect to nonfunctionality. The starkly different branding of the two grease pumps and the high degree of care presumably exercised by the pumps' sophisticated consumers compelled the conclusion that, as a matter of law, Groeneveld failed to carry its burden of raising a triable issue regarding the likelihood of confusion. Dilution was not just a new argument, it was a new cause of action, and the court declined to consider the new claim on appeal.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class