Trade Dress Infringement
1Elements and Case Citations
[MM_Access_Decision access='false']
- Plaintiff is the prior user of the trade dress;
- Plaintiff’s trade dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning;
- The features of the plaintiff’s trade dress are primarily non-functional; and
- Plaintiff’s and defendant’s trade dress are confusingly similar.
Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:
- The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
- The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
- The statute of limitations; and
- The defenses to this cause of action.
Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide
Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!
[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']- Plaintiff is the prior user of the trade dress;
- Plaintiff’s trade dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning;
- The features of the plaintiff’s trade dress are primarily non-functional; and
- Plaintiff’s and defendant’s trade dress are confusingly similar.
The elements of common law trade dress infringement and Lanham Act trade dress infringement are identical. See American United Life Ins. Co. v. American United Ins. Co., 731 F. Supp. 480, 486 (S.D. Fla. 1990). Trade dress describes the product’s complete image, and includes, but is not limited to, shape, size, texture, color combinations, graphics or unique sales techniques. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 765, 112 S. Ct. 2735, 120 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1992).
FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS
Eleventh Circuit: Yellowfin Yachts, Inc. v. Barker Boatworks, LLC, 898 F.3d 1279, 1288 (11th Cir. 2018); Miller’s Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC, 702 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2012).
Southern District: Ronin Factory, LLC v. Imp. Glob., LLC, No. 24-24700-CIV, 2025 WL 887371, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2025); Microsoft Corp. v. Guirguis, 2022 WL 1664181, *6-7 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2022); GLD, LLC v. Gold Presidents, LLC, No. 20-21617-CIV, 2021 WL 148737, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2021); Scanz Techs., Inc. v. JewMon Enterprises, LLC, No. 20-22957-CIV, 2021 WL 65466, at *12 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2021).
Middle District: Hyde Park Storage Suites Daytona, LLC v. Crown Park Storage Suites, LLC, 2022 WL 18716695, *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2022); E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, LLC, 2022 WL 4120012, *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2022); E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, LLC, 2021 WL 4748728, *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2021); Galaxy Am., Inc. v. EZ Inflatables, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-855-JES-MRM, 2021 WL 1909647, at *8 (M.D. Fla. May 12, 2021).
Northern District: Sandshaker Lounge & Package Store LLC v. RKR Beverage Inc, No. 3:17-cv-00686-MCR-CJK, 2018 WL 7351689, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2018); Ross Bicycles, Inc. v. E. Coast Cycles, Inc, No. TCA 83-7354, 1984 WL 63146, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 1984), aff’d, Ross Bicycles, Inc. v. Cycles USA, Inc., 765 F.2d 1502, 1509 (11th Cir. 1985).
2 Defenses to Claim for Trade Dress Infringement
Trade dress has been generally incorporated into the law of trade marks and thus the defenses are the same. See Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition ‘ 16 Comment a (1995).
(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.
(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years). See Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531, 1546 (11th Cir. 1986).
(3) Consent. See § 85 [2].
(4) Abandonment. See § 85 [2].
(5) Unreasonable Delay (Laches). See § 85 [2].
(6) Plaintiff’s Misconduct (Unclean Hands). See § 85 [2].
(7) Plaintiff’s failure to initiate litigation against every potential and actual infringer does not, without more, diminish the strength of the plaintiff’s mark. See Breakers of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Int’l Beach Hotel Dev., Inc., 824 F. Supp. 1576, 1584 (S.D. Fla. 1993).
(8) Acquiescence is an equitable defense available when the licensor has expressly or impliedly consented the infringement. See Isaly Co. v. Kraft, Inc., 619 F. Supp. 983, 995 (M.D. Fla. 1985).