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 | 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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
