TTAB’s Res Judicata Ruling Regarding Speaker Design Functionality Withstands Challenge
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.12.07
In In re Bose Corp. (No, 06-1173; February 8, 2007), a Federal Circuit panel affirms the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's refusal to register Bose's speaker design mark pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata , based on the Court's earlier refusal to register as functional Bose's previous application for the same mark and the same goods (“Bose I”).
On appeal from the TTAB's decision in this case, Bose asserted that application of res judicata was improper because the facts and circumstances had changed since Bose I. In particular, Bose asserted that (1) in Bose I, the Court did not consider the “curved front edge” present in the instant application; (2) an intervening Supreme Court decision in TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays , 532 U.S. 23 (2001) changed the legal standard of inquiry for functionality of trade dress, and (3) in the instant application, the TTAB failed to consider additional evidence of an absence of promotional material touting the utilitarian aspects of the mark.
The Court disagrees with each of Bose's arguments. Regarding the “curved front edge,” the Court finds that it expressly considered the “bowed” front edge of the design in Bose I, and, contrary to Bose's assertions, “ 'bowed' is simply another term for ‘curved,' and the picture of the design at issue in Bose I depicts the same curved edge as the design in the present application.” The Court also finds that the decision in Trafix “does not affect the prior functionality analysis in Bose I,” and that, under Trafix , Bose's utility patent, which expressly claims a loudspeaker system with angled baffles and a pentagonal cross-section, is “strong evidence” of functionality. Lastly, the Court finds that while Bose's promotional materials do not tout the advantages of the curved front edge, the mark at issue is the overall pentagonal-shaped design, and that “the promotional advertisements did clearly promote the functional reason for the overall design.”
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
