1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Determination Of Whether Trade Dress Is Product Design Is A Factual Question

Determination Of Whether Trade Dress Is Product Design Is A Factual Question

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.29.06

In a case of first impression, In re Slokevage (No, 05-1389; March 21, 2006), the Federal Circuit holds that the question of whether trade dress is product design is a factual question, and affirms the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's finding that trade dress for certain clothing was product design and therefore not inherently distinctive. Substantial evidence is found to support the TTAB's requirement for a disclaimer of a portion of the mark.

Slokevage had filed an application to register a configuration that consisted of a label with the words “FLASH DARE” in a V-shaped background, and cut-out areas located on each side of the label. The cut-out areas consisted of a hole in a garment and a flap attached to the garment with a closure device. The TTAB refused registration on grounds that the mark was product design. Applicant appealed, in part, on the assertion that the question of whether trade dress is product design is a legal, not factual, question.

The panel holds that “the determination of whether trade dress is product design is a factual finding because it is akin to determining whether a trademark is inherently distinctive or whether a mark is descriptive, which are questions of fact. As to Slokevage's mark, the panel, relying on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc. , 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000), observes that “[C]onsumers may purchase [Applicant's] clothing for the utilitarian purpose of wearing a garment or because they find the appearance of the garment particularly desirable. Consistent with the Supreme Court's analysis in Wal-Mart , in such cases when the purchase implicates a utilitarian or aesthetic purpose, rather than a source-identifying function, it is appropriate to require proof of distinctiveness.”

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights