HowardLeight Industries, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2006

No. 76439661 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2006)

Mailed:
July 5, 2006

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Howard Leight Industries, LLC
________

Serial No. 76439661
_______

Robert D. Hornbaker of Freilich, Hornbaker, and Rosen for
Howard Leight Industries, LLC.

Alain Lapter, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108
(Andrew Lawrence, Managing Attorney).1
_______

Before Grendel, Holtzman and Drost, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Grendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Applicant seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the matter depicted below

1 A different Trademark Examining Attorney handled this
application prior to appeal.

THIS OPINION IS CITABLE
AS PRECEDENT OF THE
TTAB
Ser. No. 76439661
2
for goods identified in the application, as amended, as
“earplugs for noise protection formed of slow recovery
resilient foam material.”2 The application includes the
following description of the mark: “The mark consists of a
bullet-shaped earplug with a vertical axis, a rounded
bottom, and a radially outwardly flared top.”
The Trademark Examining Attorney has issued a final
refusal of registration on the ground that the matter
sought to be registered is functional and thus
unregistrable under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(5), 15
U.S.C. §1052(e)(5), and on the alternative ground that if
the matter is not functional, it is a configuration of the
goods which has not acquired distinctiveness and which thus
is not registrable pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(f),
15 U.S.C. §1052(f).
Applicant has appealed the final refusal. The appeal
is fully briefed;3 no oral hearing was requested. The
evidence of record on appeal consists of the following: the
application file, including the product packaging submitted

2 Serial No. 76439661, filed August 5, 2002. The application is
based on use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15
U.S.C. §1051(a). April 9, 1987 is alleged to be the date of
first use and the date of first use in commerce.

3 Because a premature final refusal was issued and then
withdrawn, the operative main brief for applicant in this case is
its September 29, 2005 Supplemental Appeal Brief, and the
Addendum thereto filed on October 12, 2005.
Ser. No. 76439661
3
as applicant’s specimens of use; applicant’s expired U.S.
(Utility) Patent No. 4,774,938, entitled “SLOW RECOVERY
EARPLUG WITH LARGELY IMPENETRABLE SURFACE”; a photograph of
eight earplugs asserted by applicant to be alternative
earplug designs; twenty design patents for earplugs,
asserted by applicant to be alternative earplug designs;
samples of applicant’s advertising and promotional
materials; and the Declaration of applicant’s vice-
president, Mark Hampton.
After careful review of the evidence and the arguments
of counsel, and for the reasons discussed below, we affirm
the refusal to register on the ground that the matter
sought to be registered is functional, and also affirm on
the alternative ground that the matter sought to be
registered has not acquired distinctiveness.

Functionality
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(5)4 precludes registration
of “any matter that, as a whole, is functional.”5 The

4 This provision of the statute applies only to applications
filed after October 30, 1998. Technical Corrections to Trademark
Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 105-330, §201(b), 112 Stat. 3064 (1998).
The present application was filed on August 5, 2002.

5 “The term ‘as a whole’ existed under prior decisional law and
refers to the entirety of the mark itself, rather than the
entirety of the class of goods in connection with which the mark
Ser. No. 76439661
4
Supreme Court has stated: “In general terms, a product
feature is functional if it is essential to the use or
purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality
of the article.” Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives
Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.10
(1982). The Supreme Court has called this “Inwood
formulation” the “traditional rule” of functionality.
TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., 532 U.S.
23, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001).
The functionality doctrine is intended to encourage
legitimate competition by maintaining the proper balance
between trademark law and patent law. As the Supreme Court
observed in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S.
159, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1163-64 (1995):

The functionality doctrine prevents
trademark law, which seeks to promote
competition by protecting a firm’s
reputation, from instead inhibiting
legitimate competition by allowing a
producer to control a useful product
feature. It is the province of patent
law, not trademark law, to encourage
invention by granting inventors a
monopoly over new product designs or
functions for a limited time, after
which competitors are free to use the
innovation. If a product’s functional
features could be used as trademarks,

is used.” Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268,
61 USPQ2d 1422, at n.6 (Fed. Cir. (2002).

Ser. No. 76439661
5
however, a monopoly over such features
could be obtained without regard to
whether they qualify as patents and
could be extended forever (because
trademarks may be renewed in
perpetuity). That is to say, the
Lanham Act does not exist to reward
manufacturers for their innovation in
creating a particular device; that is
the purpose of the patent law and its
period of exclusivity. The Lanham Act,
furthermore, does not protect trade
dress in a functional design simply
because an investment has been made to
encourage the public to associate a
particular functional feature with a
single manufacturer or seller.

The Federal Circuit, our primary reviewing court,
looks at four factors when it considers the issue of
functionality: (1) the existence of a utility patent
disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design; (2)
advertising materials in which the originator of the design
touts the design’s utilitarian advantages; (3) the
availability to competitors of functionally equivalent
designs; and (4) facts indicating that the design results
in a comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing
the product. Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278
F.3d 1268, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing In
re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ
9, 15-16 (CCPA 1982). These are known as the Morton-
Norwich factors.
Ser. No. 76439661
6
The first Morton-Norwich factor is the existence of a
utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the
design. For purposes of this factor, we consider not only
utility patents which are currently extant, but also
expired utility patents. See TrafFix Devices Inc., supra,
58 USPQ2d at 1005-1007.6
Regarding the evidentiary value of utility patents in
the functionality determination, the Supreme Court has
instructed as follows:

A prior patent, we conclude, has vital
significance in resolving the trade dress
claim. A utility patent is strong evidence
that the features therein claimed are
functional. If trade dress protection is
sought for those features the strong evidence
of functionality based on the previous patent
adds great weight to the statutory presumption
that features are deemed functional until
proved otherwise by the party seeking trade
dress protection. Where the expired patent
claimed the features in question, one who seeks
to establish trade dress protection must carry
the heavy burden of showing that the feature is
not functional, for instance by showing that it
is merely an ornamental, incidental or
arbitrary aspect of the device.

6 Abandoned utility patent applications likewise are probative
evidence under the first Morton-Norwich factor. See Valu
Engineering Inc., supra, 61 USPQ2d at 1429.

Ser. No. 76439661
7
TrafFix Devices Inc., supra, 58 USPQ2d at 1005.7 The Court
further explained (in reference to the patented road sign
design at issue in TrafFix):

In a case where a manufacturer seeks to protect
arbitrary, incidental, or ornamental aspects of
features of a product found in the patent
claims, such as arbitrary curves in the legs or
an ornamental pattern painted on the springs, a
different result might obtain. There the
manufacturer could perhaps prove that those
aspects do not serve a purpose within the terms
of the utility patent. [The patent and its
prosecution history must be examined] to see if
the feature in question is shown as a useful
part of the invention.

TrafFix, supra, 58 USPQ2d at 1007.8 Professor McCarthy
notes in this regard: “Prior case law cautions that a

7 The “statutory presumption that features are deemed functional
until proved otherwise” to which the Court refers is applied in
trade dress infringement actions brought under Trademark Act
Section 43(a). See Trademark Act Section 43(a)(3), 15 U.S.C.
§1125(a)(3). In ex parte proceedings before the Board, by
contrast, the Office has the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of functionality. Likewise, the plaintiff in an
inter partes proceeding before the Board bears the initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of functionality. If such
prima facie case is established, the burden then shifts to the
applicant (or registrant) to prove nonfunctionality. See Valu-
Engineering Inc., supra, 61 USPQ2d at 1429, and cases cited
therein. While the Section 43(a)(3) statutory presumption of
functionality is not applicable in Board proceedings, we
understand the Supreme Court’s instructions in TrafFix, quoted
above, to require us to regard a utility patent as “strong
evidence” entitled to “great weight” in our determination of
whether the Office (or an inter partes plaintiff) has established
a prima facie case of functionality. If such prima facie case is
supported by the existence of a utility patent claiming the
design feature(s) in question, the burden shifts to the applicant
(or registrant) to prove nonfunctionality.
Ser. No. 76439661
8
utility patent must be examined in detail to determine
whether the disclosed configuration is really primarily
functional or is just a non-functional shape that happens
to be described or pictured as an incidental detail in a
patent disclosure.” J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on
Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §7:89 (4th ed. 2006).
Similarly, as McCarthy notes at §7:89.1, the Court of
Customs and Patent Appeals has stated that “[a] patent may
not be evidence of functionality in regard to things of a
‘purely arbitrary’ or ‘mere design’ nature which happen to
be disclosed in the patent but which are not attributed any
functional significance therein.” Best Lock Corp. v.
Schlage Lock Co., 413 F.2d 1195, 162 USPQ 552, 556
(C.C.P.A. 1969).
However, if the patent discloses the functionality of
the design,

...this evidence is particularly entitled to
great weight if the patent was applied for by
the same person who now asserts trademark
significance in the same configuration. A kind
of estoppel arises. That is, one cannot argue

8 Professor McCarthy has pointed out that non-functional elements
of an invention, such as “arbitrary curves” or a painted
“ornamental pattern,” should not and do not appear in the claims
of a utility patent as asserted by the Supreme Court in the
quoted language; “[t]herefore, the Court must have been referring
to non-functional features that appear in a patent disclosure.”
J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition, §7:89 (4th ed. 2006).

Ser. No. 76439661
9
that a shape is functionally advantageous in
order to obtain a utility patent and later
assert that the same shape is non-functional in
order to obtain trademark protection.
Functional patent protection and trademark
protection are mutually exclusive. As one
court stated, when the configuration is
disclosed in a functional patent, and the
patent expires, the public “now has its
inning.”

McCarthy, supra, at §7:89.1.
Before we turn to the patent evidence in this case, we
must address applicant’s argument regarding the evidentiary
value to be accorded to the various portions of the patent.
Applicant argues (Supplemental Appeal Brief at 12-13) that
the Trademark Examining Attorney erred in looking to the
claims made in applicant’s patent, and implies that we too
should not or may not look to those claims in determining
functionality. Applicant cites In re Bose, 772 F.2d 866,
227 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985), where the court stated:

The board did not err in looking to the
patents, as it stated, only insofar as the
disclosure contained “evidence of the
functionality of the outline shape sought to be
registered as a trademark.” In re Deister
Concentrator Co., 289 F.2d 496, 501, 129 USPQ
314, 319 (CCPA 1961). Cf. Cable Electric
Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., [770 F.2d
1015], 226 USPQ 881, 891 [] (Fed. Cir.
1985)(readability of patent claims on structure
is not test of functionality for trademark
purposes).

Ser. No. 76439661
10
In re Bose, 227 USPQ at 6 (emphasis in original).
We are not persuaded by applicant’s argument. We note
that in the cited reference in In re Deister Concentrator
Co. (129 USPQ at 319), the court did not distinguish
between patent claims and patent disclosures, stating
merely that “[w]e, therefore, see no reason to consider
appellant’s patents except to the extent they may contain
evidence of the functionality of the outline shape sought
to be registered as a trademark.” Likewise, despite the
Bose court’s language in its Cable Electric Products
citation parenthetical quoted above, we note that the court
in Cable Electric Products had simply stated that

[i]n resolving the question of product design
functionality for purposes of the Lanham Act,
section 43(a), the fact finder is to consider
the appearance of the products in issue.
Reference to utility patent claims that are, or
have been, asserted to read on either product,
or to the appearance of the device depicted in
figures included in the patent specification
supporting such claims, must be done with
caution. ... Claims may be capable of reading
on many devices of strikingly different
configuration. Thus, even the fact that the
claims read on two commercial devices in the
marketplace is not support in itself for a
finding that one is a copy of the other or
confusingly similar thereto for section 43(a)
purposes. ... Hence, for purposes of
evaluating the existence or impact of product
copying, the relevance of patent figures
depends on the extent to which their appearance
is replicated in the actual marketplace product
Ser. No. 76439661
11
of the patentee. We have been shown no Ninth
Circuit precedent to the contrary.

Cable Electric Products, supra, 226 USPQ at 891 (emphasis
in original). The court’s analysis thus appears to relate
to the relevance of the patent claims to the confusing
similarity issue in a Section 43(a) false designation of
origin case, rather than to the pertinence, vel non, of the
patent claims to the functionality issue.
In any event, to the extent that the Bose court’s
above-quoted statement might be read as standing for the
proposition that patent claims are irrelevant to the
functionality determination, we believe that it is
superseded by the Supreme Court’s decision in TrafFix, in
which the Court repeatedly referred to a patent’s claims as
evidence of functionality. See TrafFix, 58 USPQ2d at 1005,
1006 (emphasis added): “[a] utility patent is strong
evidence that the features therein claimed are functional”;
“[w]here the expired patent claimed the features in
question, one who seeks to establish trade dress protection
must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is
not functional...”; “[i]n the case before us, the central
advance claimed in the expired utility patents (the
Sarkisian patents) is the dual-spring design”; “...the
strong evidentiary inference of functionality based on the
Ser. No. 76439661
12
disclosure of the dual-spring design in the claims of the
expired patents”; “[t]he rationale for the rule that the
disclosure of a feature in the claims of a utility patent
constitutes strong evidence of functionality is well
illustrated in this case.”
Finally, although we may and must look to the patent’s
claims in determining functionality, we are not limited to
review of the claims. As noted by Professor McCarthy in
his discussion of TrafFix, “...while the Court continually
talked about the evidentiary weight of what appeared in the
patent claims, in fact the Court did not restrict the
evidentiary use of a utility patent to its claims. The
Supreme Court used both disclosures in the specification
and argument made in the prosecution history as persuasive
evidence of functionality.” McCarthy, supra, at §7:89.
Likewise, McCarthy notes that “[i]t is proper to look to
the disclosure (as distinguished from the claims) in a
utility patent as evidence of the functionality of a shape.
The Trademark Board has held that each embodiment of the
invention described in a utility patent is equally
functional for purposes of trademark law.” McCarthy,
supra, at 7:89.1, citing In re Bose, supra, and In re
Edwards Ski Products Inc., 49 USPQ2d 2001 (TTAB 1999).
Ser. No. 76439661
13
Thus, in this case, we have reviewed applicant’s
utility patent as a whole, including its claims, in
determining functionality under the first Morton-Norwich
factor.
The evidence of record in this case includes
applicant’s now-expired U.S. Patent No. 4,774,938. We have
examined this utility patent in detail, and we set forth
below what we deem to be those excerpts from the patent
which are pertinent to our analysis and/or helpful to the
reader in understanding applicant’s invention:

SLOW RECOVERY EARPLUG WITH LARGELY IMPENETRABLE
SURFACE

ABSTRACT

An earplug of the slow recovery type is
described, which has open cells for expelling
gas to the outside during compression, but
which resists the entry of water through the
outside and the soiling of the outside by dirt.
The earplug includes a body formed of pressure-
molded slow recovery resilient foam material
forming multiple gas-filled shells. The plug
body has a surface region forming a skin
wherein the average cell cross-sectional area
is less than half that of cells at the center
of the body, and is less than one-tenth
millimeter, the surface region being primarily
continuous.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Slow recovery earplugs, such as the type
described in U.S. Pat. No. Re. 29,487 have
gained wide acceptance. Such earplugs can be
Ser. No. 76439661
14
rolled in the fingers to a small diameter,
inserted into the ear, and allowed to expand
over a period of between a few seconds to a few
minutes to completely fill the end of the
user’s ear canal. Such earplugs have been
previously formed by punching cylinders out of
a thick sheet of slow recovery material, which
is generally an open cell foam that allows air
to escape when squeezing the earplug before
insertion. Such earplugs easily pick up water
or other fluids which hamper their use. Also,
the multiple cut cells at the surface tend to
pick up dirt, especially when a worker with
dirty hands rolls the earplug between his
fingers to compress it prior to insertion. A
slow recovery earplug which resisted soiling
and the pickup of water at its surface would be
more sanitary and have a longer lifetime of
use.
(Column 1, lines 1-23.)

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with one embodiment of the
present invention, a slow recovery earplug is
provided, which resists soiling especially
during squeezing of the earplug to fit into the
ear. The earplug includes a main body formed
of pressure-molded slow recovery resilient foam
plastic material that forms multiple gas-filled
shells. The average cell diameter within the
body decreases at locations progressively
closer to the outside surface of the earplug,
to provide a somewhat smooth surface which is
devoid of large cells that could pick up dirt.
The surface region forms a smooth skin that is
largely imperious [sic – impervious] to solid
and liquid contaminants. ...
The novel features of the invention are set
forth with particularity in the appended
claims. The invention will be best understood
from the following description when read in
conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
(Column 1, lines 25-42.)

...
Ser. No. 76439661
15

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

Fig. 1 illustrates a slow recovery earplug
10 which includes a largely bullet-shaped main
body portion 12 and a flared rear end 14. As
indicated in Fig. 2, the main body portion is
designed to be compressed to the configuration
shown at 12A (FIG. 2) so it can be inserted
into the ear canal C of a person. During a
period of about one minute, the earplug expands
to near its uncompressed configuration, and
presses against the walls of the ear canal to
block noise. ...
(Column 1, line 62 to Column 2, line 5. Emphasis
added.)

...

The present earplug 10 is pressure molded
from a slow recovery urethane foam material.
This is accomplished by mixing the foam
materials, placing them in a mold having a
cavity of the shape shown in FIG. 1, and
closing the mold, with a very small opening for
escape of air such as a slit of about 0.2
millimeters width. The amount of foamable
material is sufficient to fill a cavity of a
volume greater than that of the finished
Ser. No. 76439661
16
earplug, so the material expands to the full
size of the cavity and then presses with
considerable pressure against the walls of the
cavity. ...
(Column 2, lines 18-28. Emphasis added.)

...

The flanged or flared rear end 14 of the
earplug limits the depth of insertion of the
earplug into the ear, and also provides a
region to be grasped to remove the earplug from
the ear canal. Because of the flange, users
tend to roll only the bullet-shaped or largely
cylindrical body 12, while leaving the flanged
end 14 at its full size. This reduces the
possibility of deep insertion of the compressed
earplug into the ear, and it reduces the
difficulty of removing the earplug. ...
(Column 3, lines 27-35. Emphasis added.)

...

What is claimed is:
1. An earplug comprising:
an earplug body having a main body portion
forming a largely cylindrical outer surface and
constructed to enable its reception in the ear
and having outer walls adapted to directly
contact the surface of the ear canal, said body
formed of pressure-molded slow recovery
resilient foam plastic material forming
multiple gas-filled open cells which permits
rolling of the main body portion to a
temporarily reduced diameter, with the average
cross-sectional area of cells being less near
substantially the entire largely cylindrical
surface of the main body portion than at the
middle of the cross-section of the main body
portion, said out walls being porous to allow
the escape of air.
2. The earplug described in claim 1
wherein:
said plastic material is a urethane foam which
has been molded under a pressure of at least
about 0.5 psi in a closed mold.
Ser. No. 76439661
17
3. The earplug described in claim 1
wherein:
said largely cylindrical main body portion has
a predetermined length and has a diameter of
about 11 millimeters along most of its length,
and said body is formed of urethane foam.
4. The earplug described in claim 1
wherein:
said body has a flared rear end of greater
diameter than said main body portion, said main
body portion having a predetermined length and
being of substantially uniform width along most
of its length, whereby to encourage rolling of
only the main body portion but not the rear
end.
5. An earplug comprising:
an earplug body having a largely bullet-shaped
main body portion having an outer surface of a
substantially circular cross-section of a width
of about 11 millimeters for fitting into a
human ear canal, and having a flared rearward
portion of greater diameter than said main body
portion, said body constructed of a pressure-
molded slow recovery urethane foam forming
multiple cells;
said main body portion having numerous gas-
filled visible open cells that are each of a
diameter of a plurality of thousandths inches,
the average cross-sectional area of said
visible open cells in a region within one-half
millimeter of said substantially circular outer
surface being less than half the average cell
cross-sectional area of said visible cells
within the central 5 millimeters of the width
of said main body portion.
6. The earplug described in claim 5
wherein:
said visible cells include a plurality of
large cells of diameters of a plurality of
tenths of millimeters, in each square
millimeter of said central 5 millimeters of
width; and
said main body portion has a pressure-molded
skin of a thickness on the order of one-
twentieth millimeter, which is substantially
continuous.
(Column 4, line 29 to column 6, line 10. Emphasis added.)
Ser. No. 76439661
18

It appears that a primary focus of the patented
invention is the composition of the foam material out of
which the earplug is formed (i.e., the foam consists of
gas-filled cells which are larger in the center of the
earplug than at the outside surface of the earplug, in
order to better resist soiling and the pickup of water).
However, it is clear that the patent also specifically
discloses and claims the functional advantages of the shape
of the earplug, i.e., the shape depicted in applicant’s
trademark application drawing and in applicant’s
description of the mark. That description of the mark
states that “[t]he mark consists of a bullet-shaped earplug
with a vertical axis, a rounded bottom, and a radially
outwardly flared top.” Claim 5 of the patent, in very
similar terms, claims “an earplug comprising: an earplug
body having a largely bullet-shaped main body portion ...
and having a flared rearward portion of greater diameter
than said main body portion.” (Column 4, lines 62-68.)
The patent’s Description of the Preferred Embodiment
likewise specifically identifies an earplug which includes
“a largely bullet-shaped main body portion 12 and a flared
rear end 14” (Column 1, lines 65-67), and states that the
earplug is formed by placing the foam materials “in a mold
Ser. No. 76439661
19
having a cavity of the shape shown in FIG. 1” (Column 2,
lines 19-21).
The elements of the shape of the earplug, as disclosed
and claimed in the patent, are not arbitrary or ornamental
flourishes, nor are they merely incidental to the design
and function of the earplug. Claim 1 specifies that the
main body portion of the earplug has “a largely cylindrical
outer surface” which is “constructed to enable its
reception in the ear and having outer walls adapted to
directly contact the surface of the ear canal.” (Column 4,
lines 30-35.) The cylindrical shape thus is not arbitrary
or ornamental but instead serves an essential function,
i.e., it allows the body of the earplug to directly contact
the surface of the human ear canal, which likewise is
cylindrical in shape. (FIG. 2 at C.) The patent
repeatedly refers to the cylindrical shape of the main body
portion of the earplug.
Likewise, the flanged or flared rear end of the
earplug is not an arbitrary or incidental design flourish,
but rather is essential to the proper functioning of the
earplug. “Because of the flange, users tend to roll only
the bullet-shaped or largely cylindrical body 12, while
leaving the flanged end 14 at its full size. This reduces
the possibility of deep insertion into the ear, and it
Ser. No. 76439661
20
reduces the difficulty of removing the earplug.” (Column
3, lines 30-35.) See also Claim 4, which specifies that
the earplug “has a flared rear end of greater diameter than
said main body portion, ... whereby to encourage rolling of
only the main body portion but not the rear end.” (Column
4, lines 56-61.)
In the patent’s Description of the Preferred
Embodiment, the text at Column 1, line 68 to column 2, line
5, reads as follows:

As indicated in Fig. 2, the main body portion
is designed to be compressed to the
configuration shown at 12A (FIG. 2) so it can
be inserted into the ear canal C of a person.
During a period of about one minute, the
earplug expands to near its uncompressed
configuration, and presses against the walls of
the ear canal to block noise.

Applicant repeatedly argues that this language establishes
that the shape of its earplug is not essential to the use
or purpose of the earplug, and thus is not functional under
the law, because it shows that “any shape, formed of slow
recovery foam material, will work, provided it is larger
than the ear canal.” (Supplemental Appeal Brief at 3, 6,
10, 13, 15, and 17.) Applicant argues that the description
in the patent refers to the “bullet-shaped main body
portion” and the “flared rear end” only incidentally, and
Ser. No. 76439661
21
notes that the Abstract in the patent describes the
invention without mentioning these features. Applicant
argues that claims 1-4 of the patent likewise make no
mention of the “bullet-shaped main body portion,” and that
they therefore are not limited to earplugs having such a
configuration.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Rather, we
find that applicant’s expired utility patent is strong
evidence of the functionality of the earplug configuration
applicant seeks to register. The bullet-shaped main body
portion is one of only a few possible reasonable variations
of the “cylindrical” shape repeatedly claimed and disclosed
in the patent. The bullet-shaped main body (which allows
for direct contact with the cylindrical surface of the ear
canal) and the flared rear end (which helps prevent too-
deep insertion and assists in removal of the earplug) are
specifically claimed in Claim 5 of the patent, and are
specifically disclosed in the first sentence of the
patent’s Description of the Preferred Embodiment. These
features are more than merely de facto functional; rather,
the patent shows that the earplug is in this shape because
it works better in this shape. Both the disclosures and
the claims of the patent reveal that the shape of the
earplug is not a mere arbitrary, ornamental or incidental
Ser. No. 76439661
22
flourish, but rather serves an essential function in the
use of the earplug, and affects the quality of the earplug.
In short, applicant’s expired utility patent
demonstrates the utilitarian advantages of the earplug
design at issue, and we find that the first Morton-Norwich
factor accordingly weighs heavily in favor of a finding of
functionality.
There is no evidence of record showing that applicant
touts the utilitarian advantages of its earplug design in
its advertisements, nor that the design results in a
comparatively simple or cheap method of manufacturing the
product. The second and fourth Morton-Norwich factors
accordingly do not support a finding of functionality in
this case, and these factors are neutral in our analysis.
The third Morton-Norwich factor contemplates
consideration of evidence of the availability to
competitors of functionally equivalent designs. Regarding
the applicability of this factor after the Supreme Court’s
decision in TrafFix, the Federal Circuit has noted, first,
that the Court in TrafFix

reaffirmed the “traditional rule” of Inwood
that “a product feature is functional if it is
essential to the use or purpose of the article
or if it affects the cost or quality of the
article.” The Court further held that once a
product feature is found to be functional under
Ser. No. 76439661
23
this “traditional rule,” “there is no need to
proceed further to consider if there is
competitive necessity for the feature,” and
consequently “[t]here is no need ... to engage
... in speculation about other design
possibilities. ... Other designs need not be
attempted.”

Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., supra, 61 USPQ2d at
1427. (Citations omitted.) The Federal Circuit then
continued:

Nothing in TrafFix suggests that consideration
of alternative designs is not properly part of
the overall mix, and we do not read the Court’s
observations in TrafFix as rendering the
availability of alternative designs irrelevant.
Rather, we conclude that the Court merely noted
that once a product feature is found functional
based on other considerations9 there is no need
to consider the availability of alternative
designs, because the feature cannot be given
trade dress protection merely because there are
alternative designs available. But that does
not mean that the availability of alternative
designs cannot be a legitimate source of
evidence to determine whether a feature is
functional in the first place.

Id.
In this case, as discussed above, we find that
applicant’s expired utility patent, which specifically
discloses and claims the utilitarian advantages of

9 The Federal Circuit’s footnote 5, inserted at this point in the
quoted language, reads: “For example, a feature may be found
functional where the feature ‘affects the cost or quality of the
device.’ TrafFix, 121 S.Ct. at 1263.”

Ser. No. 76439661
24
applicant’s earplug configuration and which clearly shows
that the shape at issue “affects the ... quality of the
device,” is a sufficient basis in itself for finding that
the configuration is functional, given the strong weight to
be accorded such patent evidence under TrafFix. Thus,
under the Supreme Court’s TrafFix test as interpreted by
the Federal Circuit in Valu Engineering, because these
“other considerations” (i.e., the disclosures and claims of
the patent) establish the functionality of the design,
“there is no need to consider the availability of
alternative designs, because the feature cannot be given
trade dress protection merely because there are alternative
designs available.” Valu Engineering, supra, 61 USPQ at
1427.
However, even if we consider the evidence of
alternative designs that appears in the record, we conclude
that such evidence is insufficient to overcome the contrary
evidence of the functionality of applicant’s design as
specifically disclosed and claimed in applicant’s expired
utility patent, giving due weight to the patent as required
by TrafFix.
Applicant has submitted a photograph of eight earplugs
of various shapes, along with the drawings from twenty
Ser. No. 76439661
25
design patents for earplugs.10 Many of these alternative
earplug designs do not appear to be functional equivalents
to applicant’s design because they lack either (or both) of
the design features claimed and disclosed in applicant’s
expired utility patent, i.e., the cylindrical main body
portion which allows the earplug to conform to the shape of
the human ear canal, and the flared rear end which helps
prevent too-deep insertion of the earplug and which aids in
removing the earplug. Applicant’s earplug shape clearly is
one of but few possible alternative designs which provide
these features and serve these functions.
However, even if some of these alternative designs are
deemed to be functionally equivalent designs and thus are
evidence in support of a finding of non-functionality, we
find that this evidence is simply outweighed, in our
functionality analysis, by the clear and strong evidence of

10 These are U.S. Patent Nos. D329,897, D335,342, D340,282,
D341,656, D423,664, D307,635, D253,723, D371,840, D89,947,
D97,038, D195,322, D234,321, D235,483, D236,162, D242,743,
D264,249, D262,491, D273,614, D296,524 and D298,356. Only the
first six of these patents covers earplugs formed of slow
recovery resilient foam material; the other fourteen are not
formed of such material. The significance of this distinction is
not explained by applicant or readily apparent, but applicant
filed an Addendum to Supplemental Brief in which it took pains to
make the distinction, and in its briefs applicant repeatedly
describes as relevant alternative designs only those earplugs
which are made of slow recovery resilient foam material. (See
Supplemental Appeal Brief at 3, 6, 10, 13, 15, and 17.) In an
abundance of caution, however, we have considered all twenty
design patents in our analysis under the third Morton-Norwich
factor.
Ser. No. 76439661
26
functionality contained in applicant’s expired utility
patent.
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the
earplug design depicted in applicant’s trademark
application drawing is functional. Although there is no
evidence of functionality under the second and fourth
Morton-Norwich factors, and even if we consider the
alternative design evidence of record under the third
Morton-Norwich factor, we find that the strong evidence of
functionality disclosed by applicant’s expired utility
patent, under the first Morton-Norwich factor and in
accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in TrafFix,
simply outweighs any contrary evidence which might support
a finding of non-functionality.
Applicant’s utility patent for the earplug has
expired, and we are not persuaded by applicant’s contention
that the earplug configuration, with its functional
advantages as disclosed and claimed in the patent, is now
entitled to trademark registration. Rather, we find that
the evidence of record establishes, prima facie, that
applicant’s design is functional, and that applicant has
failed to rebut that presumption. Registration of the
design as a trademark is barred under Trademark Act Section
Ser. No. 76439661
27
2(e)(5), and we affirm the Trademark Examining Attorney’s
refusal on that ground.

Acquired Distinctiveness
Because applicant’s design is functional, any evidence
of distinctiveness is of no avail to applicant in support
of registration. See TrafFix, supra, 58 USPQ2d at 1007
(“Functionality having been established, whether MDI’s
dual-spring design has acquired secondary meaning need not
be considered”). See also M-5 Steel Mfg. Co. v. O’Hagin’s
Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1086 (TTAB 2001). However, in the interest
of completeness, should applicant appeal and ultimately
prevail on the issue of functionality, we also shall
consider applicant’s contention that its design has
acquired distinctiveness and thus is registrable pursuant
to Trademark Act Section 2(f).
A product configuration is not inherently distinctive,
and (if non-functional) may be registered on the Principal
Register only upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness
under Section 2(f). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara
Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000). The
burden of establishing acquired distinctiveness is on the
applicant, who must establish acquired distinctiveness by a
preponderance of the evidence. Yamaha International
Ser. No. 76439661
28
Corporation v. Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd., 840 F.2d 1572, 6
USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In support of its acquired distinctiveness claim,
applicant relies on the July 24, 2003 declaration of
applicant’s vice-president, Mark Hampton. In the
declaration, Mr. Hampton states: that he believes that the
earplug design has become distinctive as a mark due to
applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use for
over fifteen years; that, in the years 2000-2002, applicant
sold a total of over one billion earplugs incorporating the
design in the United States, and sold over 294 million
earplugs to purchasers outside the United States; that
sales of the earplugs have been made in all fifty states,
to hundreds of customers; and that applicant’s advertising
expenditures over the past three years (dating from July
2003) were approximately $1,564,000.
Also of record are samples of applicant’s
advertisements. One includes a prominently-featured logo
depicting MAX® in stylized letters, a large picture of the
earplug, and the following text:

Maximum Security
MAX® disposable earplugs control the toughest
noise problems. Their NRR33 rating provides
the highest protection available anywhere. The
ultra-soft, contoured polyurethane foam is easy
on the ears. And the price is easy on any
Ser. No. 76439661
29
budget. For protection, for comfort, for
value, MAX rules.

Try 100 pairs of MAX earplugs FREE. Just call
877.618.1905. You’ll like what you don’t hear.

Another advertisement likewise includes the stylized MAX®
logo in large size, a picture of the goods, and the
following text:

The highest NRR rating available!
MAX (NRR 33) pre-shaped foam earplugs feature a
smooth outer skin for maximum user comfort.
The NRR 33 rating makes the MAX the best-
selling highest-rated disposable earplug in the
U.S. The smooth, soil-resistant skin helps
prevent dirt from penetrating the surface prior
to insertion. Attenuation tested in accordance
with ANSI S3.19-1974. Coral color, packed in
poly bags.

This advertisement then identifies various models as
follows: MAX-1, MAX-1-PB, MAX-30, MAX-30-PB and MAX-5.
Applicant also has submitted a photograph of its trade show
booth, at which is featured a large sign bearing a
photograph of the earplug along with text which we cannot
discern. Applicant’s specimens of record are packaging for
the earplugs, which bears the stylized logo mark MAX® in
large size along with a drawing of the goods.
We find that the evidence of record fails to
establish, prima facie, that applicant’s earplug
configuration has acquired distinctiveness as a trademark.
Ser. No. 76439661
30
Applicant’s claim of substantially exclusive11 and
continuous use for over fifteen years does not suffice, in
this case, to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness. See In
re Gibson Guitar Corp., 61 USPQ2d 1948 (TTAB 2001)(sixty-
six years of use insufficient to establish acquired
distinctiveness). Applicant’s asserted U.S. sales12 of over
one billion units in the years 2000-2002 is not
particularly probative evidence of acquired
distinctiveness, because although this seems like a large
number, we cannot determine on this record what percentage
of the market this number makes up. See id. (“As for the
sales of 10,000 in a two-year period, again there is no
evidence to show whether this is a large number of sales of
guitars vis-à-vis the sales of other companies”).13
Moreover, although the sales figures might demonstrate that
applicant has been successful in marketing its earplugs and

11 We note that a few of the “alternative designs” submitted by
applicant appear to look very similar to applicant’s design, but
we have no evidence as to the extent of use of these other
designs or what effect their marketing might have had on
applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness.

12 Applicant’s sales of earplugs outside the United States are not
probative evidence on the question of acquired distinctiveness in
the United States.

13 We note that one of applicant’s advertisements asserts that
“[t]he NRR 33 rating makes the MAX the best-selling highest-rated
disposable earplug in the U.S.” We find that this statement,
even assuming its accuracy, is too vague and qualified to be
reliable proof of applicant’s share of the market for earplugs.
Ser. No. 76439661
31
that customers find applicant’s earplugs to be quality
merchandise worth purchasing, we cannot determine, from the
sales figures, that purchasers view the shape of the
earplug as a mark.
Applicant’s asserted advertising expenditure of over
$1.5 million in the past three years likewise does not
persuade us that applicant’s earplug configuration has
acquired distinctiveness as a trademark. Indeed, there is
nothing in applicant’s advertisements or packaging from
which we could determine that purchasers have been
conditioned or educated to look to the shape of the
earplugs, per se, as a source indicator. The
advertisements include no “look for” instructions which
might encourage purchasers to view the shape of the earplug
as a trademark. Secondary meaning occurs when “in the
minds of the public, the primary significance of [the
configuration] is to identify the source of the product
rather than the product itself”. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
supra, 54 USPQ2d at 1068. The photographs or drawings of
the earplugs contained in applicant’s advertisements and
packaging would be used by purchasers to identify the
product itself, and not the source of the product.
Although applicant is correct in contending that goods may
be sold under more than one mark, in this case applicant’s
Ser. No. 76439661
32
advertisements and packaging encourage purchasers to view
only the designation MAX® as the trademark for the goods;
the shape of the goods would not be perceived as a mark.
In short, assuming that applicant’s earplug design is
not functional, we find that applicant has failed to
establish, prima facie, that the design has acquired
distinctiveness as a trademark. The design therefore is
not registrable on the Principal Register pursuant to
Section 2(f).

Decision: The Section 2(e)(5) functionality refusal
is affirmed. Alternatively, we affirm the refusal on the
ground that the configuration, if not functional, is non-
distinctive and has not acquired distinctiveness.