## Facts

- Bodum USA, Inc. distributed the Chambord French press in the United States and claimed unregistered trade dress in its overall appearance, derived from a long-standing design associated with the Château de Chambord.
- Bodum’s asserted trade dress included the combined look of a metal cage with a top band, metal pillars ending in four curved feet, a C-shaped handle, and a domed lid topped with a spherical knob.
- Bodum spent substantial sums promoting the Chambord’s appearance and pursued enforcement efforts against products it viewed as copying the design.
- A Top New Casting Inc. began selling the SterlingPro French press, which Bodum alleged intentionally mimicked the Chambord’s handle, lid, and frame and caused consumer confusion.
- Bodum sued under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) and related Illinois unfair-competition and deceptive-trade-practices theories.
- At trial, A Top argued the claimed features were functional and thus ineligible for trade-dress protection; Bodum argued the overall configuration was ornamental.
- Bodum offered expert testimony characterizing the configuration as decorative, advertising emphasizing aesthetics rather than utilitarian benefits, and evidence of many alternative French press designs that performed similarly.
- A Top sought to introduce utility patents relating to French press coffeemakers to show functionality; the district court excluded them as not directed to the specific claimed configuration and as potentially confusing.
- A jury found willful infringement and awarded $2 million; the district court enhanced damages and entered a permanent injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find Bodum’s claimed unregistered trade dress nonfunctional and therefore protectable under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding A Top’s utility-patent evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- Substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the claimed trade dress, assessed as an overall configuration, was nonfunctional.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding utility patents whose limited probative value was outweighed by a risk of juror confusion under Rule 403.
- The verdict, enhanced damages, and permanent injunction remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- Unregistered trade dress is protectable under § 43(a) only if, among other requirements, it is nonfunctional.
- A product feature is functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the product, affects its cost or quality, or if exclusive rights would place competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.
- Functionality analysis may consider the overall appearance (total image) of the asserted trade dress, not only whether individual components have utilitarian roles.
- Evidence supporting nonfunctionality can include availability of alternative designs, lack of cost/quality advantages tied to the configuration, marketing that stresses aesthetic appeal rather than utility, and expert testimony.
- Utility patents can be probative of functionality, but patents not directed to the specific asserted trade-dress configuration may be excluded under Rule 403 when they invite confusion between general product utility and the particular design claimed as trade dress.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury verdict protecting the Chambord French press’s overall configuration as nonfunctional trade dress and approved excluding unrelated utility patents where their marginal relevance was outweighed by the likelihood of confusing the jury about the proper functionality inquiry.


Bodum USA, Inc. v. A Top New Casting Inc., 927 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 2019)