## Facts

- A French company distributed the *Chambord* French-press coffee maker from the 1950s to 1991; a related British firm sold a similar press under the name *La Cafetière*.
- In 1991, Bodum Holding acquired the French distributor and entered an agreement with the British firm governed by French law.
- Earlier draft agreements contained territorial limits on the British firm’s sales, but the final agreement:
  - barred sales in France,
  - barred use of the names “Chambord” and “Melior,” and
  - for four years, barred use of certain pre-acquisition distribution channels,
  - but did not include broader geographic limits.
- In 2006, La Cafetiere, Inc. was formed in Illinois to distribute in the United States a French-press marketed as the “Classic,” made by the British firm.
- Bodum USA sued under Lanham Act § 43(a) and Illinois unfair competition law, alleging infringement of unregistered trade dress in the Chambord product design and asserting that the 1991 agreement implicitly limited the British firm’s sales to certain countries.

## Issues

1. Under French law governing the 1991 agreement, did the contract restrict sales of the La Cafetière design in the United States beyond the express prohibition on sales in France and specified name/distribution restrictions?
2. Did Bodum prove protectable, unregistered product-design trade dress in the Chambord configuration (including secondary meaning) sufficient to support liability under the Lanham Act and Illinois law?

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for La Cafetiere, Inc.
- The court held the 1991 agreement, as written, allowed sales outside France and did not impose unexpressed territorial limits.
- The court held Bodum failed to prove the Chambord design had acquired secondary meaning as a source identifier, defeating its unregistered product-design trade dress and parallel state-law claims.
- The court criticized reliance on partisan expert submissions to determine foreign law, emphasizing that the court must determine foreign law as law.

## Legal Principles

- A contract governed by foreign law is interpreted primarily from its text; extrinsic evidence of intent is used to resolve genuine ambiguity, not to contradict unambiguous written terms.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, foreign law is a legal question for the court; expert opinions may assist but do not control.
- Unregistered product-design trade dress is protectable only if the design is nonfunctional and has acquired secondary meaning (consumer association with a single source).
- After a design patent expires, competitors may copy the design unless the proponent proves trademark-level secondary meaning; trade dress cannot be used to extend expired patent protection without that showing.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the defendant because the parties’ written agreement permitted sales outside France and the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence that the French-press design itself functioned in consumers’ minds as a source identifier.


Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc., 621 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2010)