Eppendorf-Netheler-Hinz GMBH v. Ritter GMBH

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that TrafFix Devices superseded Fifth Circuit’s reliance on an earlier test “virtually identical to the ‘competitive necessity’ test”
• holding that the “availability of alternative designs is irrelevant” to the functionality inquiry
• recognizing cause of action for trade dress infringement under federal law
• showing the interior designs across various swims schools are mainly differentiated by varying paint colors or “color schemes” and dressing room ornamentations and layouts
• “Accordingly, the design features for which [the plaintiff] seeks trade dress rights are functional if, they are essential to the use or purpose of the [trade dress] or affect the cost or quality of the [trade dress]. The availability of alternative designs is irrelevant.”
• “Unless protected by patent or copyright, functional product features may be copied freely by competitors in the marketplace.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).