Arlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant’s personal grooming bag for men violated Lanham Act because said bag copied plaintiff’s similar grooming bag, which plaintiff claimed was protected trade dress. Dist. Ct. could have properly found that plaintiff’s claimed trade dress was functional as matter of law, where plaintiff identified five elements of trade dress involving bag’s cuboidal shape, softness, zipper location, fold and tucked corner and seam halfway up bag’s side that concerned only functional aspects of bag, which could not be protected under Lanham Act. Ct. further rejected plaintiff’s claim that its bag’s features could be protected under Lanham Act, since said features were chosen for their aesthetic, as opposed to their functional qualities.