Bakery’s Apple Pie Design is Functional and Ineligible for Trademark Protection, Third Circuit Affirms

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s determination that the key element of a gourmet bakery’s registered pastry design was functional, and therefore ineligible for trademark protection, in Sweet Street Desserts, Inc. v. Chudleigh’s Ltd., Nos. 15-1445 & 15-1548.

In the mid-90’s, Chudleigh’s developed a single-serving apple pie, with a round shape and six overlapping folds of pastry encircling the pie filling. Chudleigh’s registered a trademark for its pie—the “Blossom Design”—and entered into discussions with Applebee’s from 2008-2010 to supply apple pies without reaching a deal. In 2010, Applebee’s asked Sweet Street Desserts, also a dessert manufacturer and restaurant supplier, to develop a single-serve apple pie. Sweet Street Desserts entered into a contract with Applebee’s to supply a “round ‘apple pocket’ that consisted of a unitary, pie-like bottom with an open top covered by six rectangular pieces of dough folded around the filling in a counter-clockwise spiral pattern ….” Sweet Street Desserts entered into discussions with Chudleigh’s to outsource the production of the product, but the parties did not reach an agreement and Sweet Street Desserts produced the dessert itself.

Chudleigh’s complained to Applebee’s that the Sweet Street Dessert’s apple pie infringed on Chudleigh’s “Blossom Design,” and featured the same “six-fold spiral pattern.” Sweet Street Desserts then filed a declaratory action in federal court, seeking a declaration that its product did not infringe on Chudleigh’s Blossom Design.

In its July 21, 2016 Opinion, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Sweet Street Desserts. Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 32 (2001), the Third Circuit reiterated that “a product feature is functional, and cannot serve as a trademark, if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.” Chudleigh’s Blossom Design was functional because the number of folds in a pie must be proportional to the size and amount of filling in the pastry. Indeed, Chudleigh’s owner testified that during his creation of the Blossom Design, the “single-serving size and round shape of the design were critical to minimizing the cost of the pastry and to filling the need in the restaurant industry to reduce waste and ease serving.” The Blossom Design was functional and the cancellation of Chudleigh’s trademark was affirmed.

Sweet Street stands as a reminder that product designs that are essential to the use of the item or go to the item’s cost or performance are the province of patent protection, not trademark. The decision also reminds businesses of the usefulness of declaratory judgment actions in protecting against allegations of infringement of intellectual property rights.

For more information on the Lanham Act or implications of Sweet Street Desserts, Inc. v. Chudleigh’s Ltd., please contact Kathleen Barnett Einhorn, Esq., Director of the firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation Group, at keinhorn@genovaburns.com or Jennifer Borek, Esq., a Partner in the Complex Commercial Litigation Group at jborek@genovaburns.com.

Share

Federal Circuit Gives Samsung Another Victory Against Apple In The Smartphone Patent War

Update: On March 21, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Samsung’s certiorari petition regarding a separate patent (a design patent and related trade dress registration for the design elements of the iPhone).  The Court agreed to review a limited question regarding the types of damages available in such cases: “Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?”

In another twist of fortunes in the long-running smartphone patent war between Apple and Samsung, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has once again overturned Apple’s patent infringement jury verdict – this time for $119.6 Million – against Samsung. The Court left intact Samsung’s small $158,400 verdict against Apple.

The case was initially filed by Apple in February 2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Samsung infringed eight of Apple’s patents used on the iPhone. Not to be outdone, Samsung countersued alleging that Apple had infringed eight of its patents used in Samsung’s Android smartphones.

After a series of trial rulings and appeals, the parties conducted a 13-day trial and the jury awarded $119.6 million to Apple based on a finding that Samsung had infringed Apple’s “structures,” “slide to unlock,” and “autocorrect” patents. Samsung was not nearly as successful, with the jury awarding it a mere $158,400 in damages for the infringement of its “camera systems” patent.

Though Apple won the trial court battle, on appeal, the Federal Circuit has granted ultimate victory to Samsung, finding that Apple’s “slide to unlock” and “autocorrect” patents were invalid (and therefore not patentable) because the evidence indicated that the inventions would have been “obvious” to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in light of the publically available information at the time the inventions were made. The Court also reversed the jury’s decision that Samsung had infringed Apple’s “structures” patent based on a technical finding that the patent required the use of a “analyzer server” and Apple failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude that the Samsung software met this “analyzer server” limitation. Apple has a small chance of turning the wheel of fortune back if an en banc Federal Circuit agrees to hear the case or if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to grant certiorari.

As this case demonstrates, fortunes can be won and lost on appeal and, as such, it is critically important to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each case even after a jury verdict is rendered.

For more information regarding patent litigation and appeals or the Court’s Federal Circuit’s decision, please contact Kathleen Barnett Einhorn, Esq., Director of the firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation Group at keinhorn@genovaburns.com, or Jennifer Borek, Esq., a Partner in the Complex Commercial Litigation Group at jborek@genovaburns.com.

Share